Punjab-Haryana High Court
Crl. Appeal No.99-Sb Of 2007 vs State Of Haryana on 11 February, 2009
Author: K.S. Garewal
Bench: K.S. Garewal
Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007
Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and
Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007
Date of Decision: 11.02.2009
Sandeep son of Surender, resident of village Deeghot, P.S.
Sadar, Palwal.
... Appellant.
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent.
2. Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007
Amar Singh son of Dulia, resident of village Manpur, Tehsil
Hathin, District Mewat.
... Appellant.
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
3. Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007
1- Ratti Ram son of Sanwal Singh,
2- Sanwal Singh son of Jeeta,
Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007
Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and
Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--2--
3- Brijesh alias Brij Mohan son of Bishamber,
All residents of village Dheeghot, P.S. Sadar Palwal,
District Faridabad.
.... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
4. Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007
1- Parmod son of Kartare resident of Khair, P.S. Jakarpur,
Delhi.
2- Ashok Kumar son of Mahender, resident of village
Halalpur, P.S. Kharkhonda.
... Appellants.
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
and
Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007
Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and
Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--3--
5. Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
1- Bijender Singh alias Biju son of Teeka Ram, resident of
village Halalpur, P.S. Kharkhonda, District Sonepat.
2- Nanu Ram alias Nanu alias Raju son of Sohan Lal,
resident of Hansi Shekhpura Mohalla, P.S. City Hansi.
... Appellants.
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GAREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for
Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate
for Sandeep, appellant,
in Crl. A. No. 99-SB of 2007.
Mr. S. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate
for Ratti Ram, Sanwal Singh and Amar Singh,
appellants,in criminal appeal Nos.152-DB of
2007 and 372-DB of 2007.
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for Brijesh @ Brij Mohan, appellant,
in Crl. A. No. 372-DB of 2007.
Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007
Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and
Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--4--
Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for
the appellants, in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 475-DB of 2007 and 480-DB of 2007.
Mr. H.S. Sran, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana, for the respondent-State,
in all the criminal appeals.
****
Sham Sunder, J.
This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 99-SB of 2007, filed by Sandeep, Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007, filed by Amar Singh, Crl. Appeal No. 372-DB of 2007, filed by Ratti Ram , Sanwal Singh , and Brijesh alias Brij Mohan, Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007, filed by Parmod and Ashok Kumar and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007, filed by Bijender Singh alias Biju and Nanu Ram alias Nanu alias Raju, accused ( now appellants ), arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2006, and the order of sentence dated 23.12.2006, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge(1), Faridabad, vide which it convicted and sentenced them, as under:
Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--5--
Names of the accused The offence for Sentence awarded
(now appellants) which conviction
was recorded.
1 Amar Singh, Ashok and U/S. 302 read with Life imprisonment
Sanwal. Section 120-B IPC each. Fine of Rs.5000/-
each. In default of
payment of fine to
undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six
months each.
Biju @ Bijender and Nanu. U/S 302 IPC. Life imprisonment
2 each. Fine of Rs.5000/-
each. In default of
payment of fine to
undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six
months each.
Parmod, Brijesh and Ratti U/S 302 read with Life imprisonment
3 Ram. Section120-B IPC. each. Fine of Rs.2000/-
each. In default of
payment of fine to
undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three
months each
Parmod, Brijesh, Ratti Ram U/S 201 IPC. Rigorous imprisonment
4 and Sandeep for three years each.
Fine of Rs.1000/-each.
In default of payment
of fine to undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for one month each.
Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007
Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007
Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and
Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--6--
The substantive sentences of all the accused were ordered to run concurrently. However, Kavita and Satto, accused were acquitted of all the charges, framed against them, whereas Sanwal Singh, accused was also acquitted of the charge, framed against him, for the offence punishable under Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts, in brief, are that, Narbir Singh, (now deceased), was an Advocate, and was residing in New Colony, Palwal, alongwith his family members. A death had taken place in the house of the daughter of the maternal uncle of the deceased. On 10.12.2004, there was uthala ceremony, in the house of the daughter of the maternal uncle of the deceased. Narbir Singh, (now deceased) had gone to the aforesaid house, to ascertain, as to at which time, they had to go to the cremation ground to lift bones. Surender, complainant, was also to accompany his brother Narbir Singh ( now deceased ) to the cremation ground for the aforesaid purpose. At about 7.30 AM, the complainant was standing in the street, waiting for his brother Narbir Singh, (now deceased). After sometime, Narbir Singh (now deceased), brother of the complainant, turned Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--7--
towards his house, on a scooter, from the side of Sanatan Dharam Temple. At that very time, three persons, on a motor- cycle came there. They stopped their motor-cycle, in front of the scooter of Narbir Singh(now deceased). An unknown person was riding the motorcycle, whereas, Sanwal Singh and Amar Singh, were the pillion riders thereof. On the asking of Sanwal Singh, Amar Singh, fired a shot at Narbir, which hit his mouth, as a result whereof, he fell down. When Surender Singh, complainant, came forward to save his brother, all the three aforesaid persons, fled with the motorcycle.
2.A. It was further stated that the elder son namely Ratti Ram of Sanwal Singh was in jail, in connection with many cases, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as also other criminal cases. It was further stated that Ratti Ram had made an attempt to kill his brother Narbir Singh and one Satbir earlier also, in relation whereto, the criminal cases were also pending in the Court. It was further stated that prior to this occurrence, on 07.12.2004, Surender Singh, complainant, and his brother Narbir Singh, had over-heard Ratti Ram, his father Sanwal, his mother Satto and his wife as also his brother-in-law Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--8--
that Narbir Singh should be killed. Ratti Ram had stated that he had already made arrangements, in this context, and Narbir Singh would be liquidated within next 3-4 days. Since Ratti Ram was in jail, Surender Singh, complainant, and his brother Narbir Singh, did not take such conversation seriously. It was further stated that on 10.12.2004 Sanwal Singh, his wife, Ratti Ram's wife, Amar Singh, Ratti Ram, his brother-in-law another person, alongwith Ratti Ram's brother Bishamber, in criminal conspiracy, with each other killed Narbir Singh.
3. Lateron, on the same day, supplementary statement was made by Surender Singh, complainant, stating therein, that he being the brother of the deceased, got perplexed and puzzled, on account of the death of his brother, Narbir Singh, and could not give the correct version in Ex.PB. He in his supplementary statement, stated that Sanwal Singh and Amar Singh, accused were already hiding themselves, near Sanatan Dharam Temple. Two boys namely Nanu Ram and Bijender alighted from the motor-cycle, at that place. Sanwal Singh and Amar Singh then pointed out Narbir Singh to them. He further stated that Nanu Ram was holding a pistol, in his Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--9--
hand, and he fired shots at Narbir Singh. Bijender, accused , who was also holding a pistol, fired shots at Narbir Singh. The shot fired by Nanu Ram, hit the face of Narbir Singh. He further stated that the assailants then decamped from the spot. He further stated that he rushed Narbir Singh, to the hospital, where he ( Narbir Singh ) was declared dead. 3-A. On 10.12.2004, Ajit Singh, Sub Inspector, the then SHO, Police Station, City Palwal, received ruqa Ex.PZ from the hospital. He reached there and met Surender Singh, complainant, where, he presented an application Ex.PB, containing the aforesaid facts, on the basis whereof an FIR was registered. Inquest proceedings Ex.PY of the dead body of Narbir Singh were conducted. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the doctor for post-mortem examination. After the post-mortem examination, the doctor handed over a sealed parcel, containing bullet, which was produced by him before Ajit Singh, Sub Inspector, who took the same, into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PAA. Thereafter, Ajit Singh, Sub Inspector, Station House Officer, went to the spot, and prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. Scooter Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--10--
bearing No. HR 30-B/2772, from the spot, was taken into possession, vide separate recovery memo Ex.PCC.
4. On 12.12.2004, Nanu Ram, accused, was arrested by Rahul Kumar, Sub Inspector, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi Police, near Sai Baba Mandir, Nazabgarh Road, Delhi. During his search, one country made pistol of .315 bore in a loaded condition alongwith one live cartridge of the same bore, was recovered from the right pocket of the pant, worn by him. The pistol alongwith the live cartridge was converted into a sealed parcel, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo.
5. On 12.12.2004 Ashok Kumar, accused was arrested. He was interrogated by Dharmender, Sub Inspector, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi Police. He made a disclosure statement. During the search of accused, a country made pistol of .315 bore and two live cartridges of the same bore, were recovered from the pocket of the pant, worn by him, which were converted into a parcel and taken into possession.
6. On 12.12.2004 Binay Singh Tyagi, Sub Inspector, deposited one sealed parcel, containing one revolver Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--11--
and six live cartridges in case FIR No. 170/4 under Section 411/34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and one Scorpio vehicle, No. HR 26K-6874 with Paramjit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. On 28.12.2004 one sealed parcel was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohni, New Delhi and after test, the same was deposited again on 07.02.2005 sealed with the seal of the Forensic Science Laboratory. On 14.2.2005 Ram Phool Sub Inspector, handed over the aforesaid parcel, vide order of CMM RS Nag. On 12.12.2004 Dharmender Kumar, Sub Inspector deposited three parcels, mark S1 to S3. All the three parcels duly sealed, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohni, for testing.
7. On 15.01.2005, Ajit Singh, Sub Inspector arrested Amar Singh, accused, who pointed out the place of occurrence.
8. On 07.02.2005 the aforesaid parcels were deposited again in the malkhana. The remaining accused were also arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.
Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--12--
9. On their appearance, in the Committing Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, charge under Sections 120-B, 148, 216, 302/149, 341/149, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.
10. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Har Gopal, ( PW-1 ), Sarwan Kumar, Draftsman, ( PW-2 ), Surender Singh, complainant, (PW-3), Hazari Lal, Head Constable, (PW-4), Sukaram Pal, Constable, (PW-5), Ram Chander, Head Constable, (PW-6), Rajender Prasad, Head Constable, (PW-7), Naveen Sehgal, Incharge, Flying Squad Staff, (PW-8), Rai Singh, Superintendent, District Jail, Sonepat, (PW-9), Krishna Devi, Sub Inspector, (PW-10), Ram Phool, Sub Inspector, (PW-11), Ram Parkash, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-12), Param Jeet Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-13), Dr. J.D. Singh, Medical Officer, (PW-14), Bavinder Singh,(PW-15), Sanjay, Photographer, (PW-16), Kuldeep Singh, (PW-17), an eye witness, Ajit Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--13--
Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-18), Ramesh Lamba, Sub Inspector, (PW-19), Rahul Kumar, Sub Inspector, (PW-20), and Dharmender, Sub Inspector, (PW-21). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.
11. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication.
12. In their defence, the accused examined Rambir, Head Constable, DW.1. Thereafter, the accused closed their defence evidence.
13. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.
14. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeals, were filed by the appellants. Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--14--
15. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
16. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that it was a blind murder. They further submitted that Surender Singh and Kuldeep, eye witnesses, were introduced later on, by the investigating agency. It was further submitted by them that Surender Singh, changed his version lateron, to a great extent, vis-a-vis his statement Ex.PB, made first point of time, by making a supplementary statement. It was further submitted by them that the name of Kuldeep Singh was not mentioned by Surender Singh, either in Ex.PB or in supplementary statement. It was further submitted that no reliable evidence was produced by the prosecution, to prove its case. It was further submitted by them that the test- identification parade of the accused was not held, as they were not known to Surender Singh or Kuldeep earlier and, as such, their participation in the alleged commission of crime, was highly doubtful. It was further submitted that the empties, which were allegedly got recovered by Sandeep, accused, Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--15--
were not found, at the spot, and the same were,therefore, fabricated lateron. It was further submitted by them, that even in Ruqa Ex.PZ, which was sent to the Police Station, by the doctor, the names of Surender Singh and Kuldeep, eye witnesses, were not mentioned. It was further submitted by them that the trial Court acted illegally in relying upon the disclosure -cum-confessional statements, made by accused, before the Police, which were hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, in recording the conviction and awarding sentence. It was further submitted by them that Kuldeep made statement, in the Court, while appearing as a prosecution witness, which was contradictory to his earlier statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, no reliance on the same, could be placed. It was further submitted by them, that multiple litigation was pending between the complainant party, and Ratti Ram and his father, (accused party) and, as such, the accused were falsely implicated, in the instant case. It was further submitted by them that there was no evidence with regard to the conspiracy at all. It was further submitted that Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--16--
the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, are not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and, thus, the same are liable to be set aside.
17. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent-State, submitted that Surender Singh and Kuldeep, eye witnesses, were not confronted with their previous statements, recorded during the course of investigation and, as such, no help therefrom, could be taken, by the accused. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the statements made by these witnesses, in the Court, being substantive evidence, were rightly relied upon by the trial Court to convict the accused. It was further submitted that since the occurrence took place, in the broad day light, it was not at all impossible for Surender Singh to identify the accused, who committed the crime. He further submitted that the statement of Hargopal, PW-1, was sufficient to prove the factum that Sanwal and his son Ratti Ram, had hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Narbir Singh. It was further submitted by him that the bullet, recovered from the body of Narbir Singh, was found to have been fired from the pistol, Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--17--
got recovered by Nanu, accused, by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohni. He further submitted that the empties, which were got recovered by Sandeep, accused, and were apparently handed over to him by one of the accused, also were of the bullets fired, from the pistols of Nanu Ram alias Nanu and Bijender Singh alias Biju , as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohni. It was further submitted by him that the accused were having grudge, against Narbir Singh (since deceased), as he was, according to them, was an obstacle in the way of compromise of the cases, pending against Ratti Ram, accused. He further submitted that even Ratti Ram, accused, made an attempt twice on the life of Narbir Singh, and criminal cases were pending against him, in regard thereto. He further submitted that the accused had a strong motive to kill Narbir Singh. It was further submitted by him that the judgment of the trial Court, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, was liable to be upheld.
18. There was a strong motive with Ratti Ram, accused, to commit the murder of Narbir Singh. Surender Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--18--
Singh, (PW-3), brother of Narbir Singh, (now deceased) stated that there was an old enmity, between his brother Narbir Singh and the accused. It was further stated by him that Ratti Ram had attacked Narbir Singh and Satbir, twice in the past. In that connection, cases under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, were pending adjudication, in the Fast Track Court, at Faridabad, against Ratti Ram and others. Even Ratti Ram was considering Narbir Singh, as an obstacle, in the way of compromise of cases, pending against him. Since Ratti Ram had grudge against Narbir Singh, on account of the aforesaid reasons, he alongwith his father Sanwal Singh, hatched a conspiracy and, thus, procured the services of Bijender Singh @ Biju and Nanu to eliminate Narbir Singh. Amar Singh, accused, also acted, in furtherance of common intention. It was under these circumstances, that the murder of Narbir Singh was committed. Once the motive set up by the prosecution, is proved, it provides strength to the ocular version.
19. The prosecution case was unfolded by Surender Singh, complainant, (PW-3), brother of Narbir Singh, Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--19--
Advocate, (now deceased), in the manner that on 10.12.2004 at about 7.30 am he was standing outside his house alongwith his cousin Kuldeep Singh, and waiting for his brother Narbir Singh, who had gone to the house of the daughter of his maternal uncle, where a death had taken place, to enquire about, as to at what time, they had to go to the cremation ground to collect the bones from the ashes. After about 15/20 minutes, Narbir Singh was seen coming from the house of the daughter of his maternal uncle, on scooter. When he reached near Sanatan Dharam Temple, they noticed that three persons came there on a motorcycle. Sanwal Singh and Amar Singh, accused were hiding themselves, near the temple. Two boys namely Nanu Ram and Bijender, accused alighted from the said motorcycle. Sanwal Singh and Amar Singh, then pointed out Narbir Singh to them. Nanu Ram was holding a pistol in his hand, and he fired shots therefrom at Narbir Singh. Bijender, who was holding a pistol, in his hand, also fired shots from his pistol, towards Narbir Singh. Surender Singh and Kuldeep Singh rushed to rescue Narbir Singh, but in the meanwhile, the assailants decamped from the spot. Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--20--
Thereafter, Narbir Singh was rushed to the hospital at about 9.00 AM, where on arrival of the Police, application Ex.PB, containing the mode and manner, in which the occurrence took place, was moved by Surender Singh, on the basis whereof, an FIR was registered. The statement of Surender Singh, PW-3, was duly corroborated by Kuldeep Singh, eye witness, who appeared in the witness box as PW-17. Still further corroboration was provided to the ocular evidence through the recovery of .315 bore Country made pistol with one live cartridge from Nanu Ram, accused on 12.12.2004 by Rahul Kumar, Sub Inspector, PW-20. This pistol was used in the commission of crime. As per the report Ex.PT/1, the bullet which was recovered from the body of the deceased, was fired from the pistol A4, recovered from Nanu Ram, accused.. Ashok Kumar, accused got recovered another country made pistol, which was used by Bijender, accused. Two empty cartridges were got recovered by Sandeep Kumar, accused, which were handed over to him by Nanu Ram, accused. The empty cartridges were found to have been fired, from the country made pistols, used as weapons of offence, by Nanu Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--21--
Ram and Bijender Singh, accused, at the time of commission of crime, as per the report Ex.PT/1 of the Forensic Science Laboratory. From the report Ex.PT/1, it was also proved that the fire arms i.e. Country made pistols were in working order. Still further corroboration was provided to the ocular evidence through report Ex.PT of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Karnal, according to which, one white terrycot shirt, in two pieces stained with numerous large, small dark brown stains, one white cotton Banian, in two pieces, stained with numerous large and small dark brown stains, one grey and black woolen jersey, in two pieces, stained with numerous large and small dark brown stains, which were being worn by the deceased, at the time of occurrence, were found stained with human blood. Still further corroboration to the ocular version, was provided through the medical evidence of Dr. J.D. Singh, Medical Officer, PW-14. He was posted as Medical Officer, in General Hospital, Palwal. On 10.12.2004 , the date of occurrence, he was a member of the Medical Board, headed by Dr. Mahinder Dhiraj, which was constituted for conducting the post-mortem examination, on Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--22--
the dead body of Narbir Singh, aged 38 years, resident of New Colony, Palwal. He found the following injuries on his person:
"Wound of entry over right cheek 2"x1" oval in shape with inverted margins. Tattooing was present around the wound of entry in an area measuring 2.5"x3.5". Abraded colour was present around the wound of entry. Surrounding this collor grease and dirt of collor were present. Underline tissue contused and extra vasation of blood was present."
On exploration of the wound, no exit wound was noticed. Track of wound was going downwards, obliquely and medially upto mid-cervical spine. Fractures of right side mandible and maxilla were present. Common carotid artery was lacerated and lumen exposed. Extra vasation of blood was present in cervical facial tissue. Internal and external jugular vein was lacerated. Lumen was exposed, trachea wall was lacerated. Lumen exposed cavity contained blood. Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--23--
Esophagus was lacerated. Lumen was exposed. 19-A. Bullet was recovered from the lateral aspect of cervical spine, partially impregnated cervical vertebrae.
19-B. Post mortem staining was present on dependent parts and rigor mortis had started appearing in both extremities.
19-C. Pleurae, Larynx and tracheas were congested. Larynx and trachea contained blood and injuries referred to above. There were injuries on the mouth, pharynx and asophagus referred to above with clotted blood. All other organs were normal. 19-D. The cause of death, in the opinion of the Board of Doctors was extensive hemorrhage and shock, on account of various injuries, referred to above, which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Board of doctors, further opined that these injuries were possible from a fire-arm. The probable duration between the injuries and death, could be from few Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--24--
minutes to few hours, and between the death and post mortem examination, it could be two to six hours.
20. Surender Singh, PW3 and Kuldeep Singh, PW-17, eye witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined. They stood the test of touch stone of all probabilities, during the course of cross- examination. No doubt, they are relation witnesses yet they could be said to be the last persons, to spare the actual culprits. Their ocular evidence, duly corroborated by the medical evidence, and other pieces of circumstantial evidence, is cogent, convincing and reliable.However,in the absence of corroboration through some independent evidence, sometimes, the chances of false implication of some of the accused, cannot be ruled out. In this case, as would be discussed, in the subsequent paragraphs, the participation of Brijesh alias Brij Mohan, Parmod, Ashok and Sandeep, accused in the commission of crime, was not proved, beyond doubt. However, the trial Court was right, in coming to the conclusion,that Nanu Ram alias Nanu alias Raju, Bijender Singh alias Biju , Amar Singh, Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--25--
Ratti Ram and Sanwal, played various roles, in the commission of crime. It, thus, emerges that Nanu, accused, committed the offence, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as the shot fired by him, proved fatal, resulting into the death of Narbir Singh. Bijender Singh alias Biju, accused and Amar Singh, accused, acted in further of common intention of Nanu accused, and both of them committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ratti Ram and his father Sanwal hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate Narbir Singh and, thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The findings of the trial Court, to this extent, being correct, are affirmed.
21. Now coming to the conspiracy angle, in this case,it may be stated here, that the evidence with regard to the same,was provided by Har Gopal, PW-1. Narbir Singh,( now deceased ) was the nephew of Har Gopal, PW-1. It was stated by him that Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--26--
on 07.12.2004, he had gone to attend some proceedings, pertaining to a case, in Palwal Courts. Ombir, Jagbir, Satpal, Kavita, Sanwal and Satto were already present there. He further stated that his case was going on with Sanwal etc. It was further stated by him that when Ratti Ram was brought from the Jail, he told his father Sanwal, within his hearing that Narbir Singh, Advocate, will have to be eliminated, as he was causing obstruction in the way of compromise. Ratti Ram, then asked his father Sanwal, accused, if he had received money for this purpose, from Bishamber Fozi. Sanwal, Satto, Kavita, Jagbir, Ombir Satpal, accused also agreed over this proposal. It was further stated by this witness, that Sanwal, accused also stated that this task was highly essential, as all of them, were to be spared, from attending the daily Court proceedings, and he( Ratti Ram ) was also to be relieved. It was further stated by Har Gopal, PW-1, that after hearing this conversation, he apprised Narbir (now deceased), as also Surender Singh, PW-3 about the conspiracy being hatched by Ratti Ram, with his father Sanwal Singh, Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--27--
who wanted to eliminate Narbir Singh. No doubt, he did not inform the police immediately with regard to the said planning nor he moved any application before the Court yet he brought this fact to the notice of Narbir Singh (now deceased) and his brother Surender Singh. Surender Singh (PW-2), who is also an advocate by profession overheard such like conversation between Ratti Ram and his father Sanwal, accused, in the Courts. On 10.12.2004, the statement of Har Gopal (PW-1), in this regard, was recorded. There was no reason, on the part of Har Gopal, PW-1, and Surender Singh, (PW-2), to depose falsely, in respect of the conspiracy, which was hatched by Ratti Ram, with his father Sanwal Singh. It is not necessary that, in order to be a conspirator, each one of the conspirators, should act in an identical manner. What is essential is that they must agree to do or cause to be done, an illegal act. Different members of the conspiracy may be assigned different roles, with the object of committing the agreed illegal act. In the instant case, the illegal act, which was to be done by Ratti Ram and his father Sanwal was to get Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--28--
eliminated Narbir Singh, Advocate, as he was causing obstructions in the way of compromise, in the cases pending against him ( Ratti Ram etc. ). In the case of Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2003 (2) Crimes 312 ( SC ), the Apex Court , held as under:-
"The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence.
In a case where the agreement is for
accomplishment of an act which by itself
constitutes an offence, then in that event, no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120-A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--29--
commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation do not require that each and every person who party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfillment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirator to commit, the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trappings of the provisions, contained in Section 120-B.... Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is seldom available, offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--30--
persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner, in which, the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this is necessarily a matter of inference .... For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence, as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. A conspiracy is a constituting offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence, whenever anyone of the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under Section 120-B of the IPC."
22. From the conversation of Ratti Ram, on 07.12.2004, in judicial Courts, within the hearing of Har Gopal, PW-1 , with his father Sanwal Singh that Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--31--
Narbir Singh was to be eliminated as he( Narbir Singh ) was causing obstructions, in the way of compromise in the cases, pending against him ( Ratti Ram ), it can be very well said that he ( Ratti Ram ) and Sanwal Singh, his father, were part and parcel of the conspiracy. The principle of law, laid down, in Ram Narayan Popli's case ( supra ) is, thus, fully applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case. The trial Court was right in holding that Ratti Ram and Sanwal, accused, committed the offence, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
23. Now coming to the submission of the Counsel for the appellants that the presence of Surender Singh, (PW-3) and Kuldeep Singh, ( PW-17 ) was un- natural and improbable, at the time of the alleged occurrence, it may be stated here that the same does not merit acceptance, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here, that the murder of Narbir Singh, was committed in the very presence of Surender Singh and Kuldeep Singh, brother and cousin Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--32--
respectively of the deceased. On account of the ghastly murder of Narbir Singh, in the very presence of Surender Singh and Kuldeep Singh, they became perplexed and puzzled. It is proved that immediately Narbir Singh was rushed to the hospital by Surender Singh and Kuldeep Singh. From Ex.PZ, ruqa, which was sent by the doctor, to the Station House Officer, it is evident that the dead body of Narbir Singh son of Harkishan, resident of New Colony Palwal, was brought to the hospital. Somebody must have brought the dead body of the deceased to the hospital. The dead body could not walk itself, to reach the hospital. It was for the doctor to record the names of the persons , who brought the dead body of Narbir Singh to the hospital. If the doctor, on account of rush of work, inadvertently or negligently did not record the names of the persons, who brought the dead body of Narbir Singh, no adverse inference, against the credibility of Surender Singh and Kuldeep Singh, eye witnesses, could be drawn. The death of Narbir Singh was caused by firing shots at him. Under these circumstances, it was not at all possible Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--33--
for Surender Singh and Kuldeep Singh, to intervene as life is dear to everybody. They knew that, in case, they intervened, they would also to be done to death. It was, under these circumstances that they did not intervene. Even otherwise, the conduct of a witness before the occurrence, at the time of occurrence and after the occurrence, may differ from person to person. The mere fact that both these witnesses did not raise hue and cry, in itself, could not be said to be sufficient to come to the conclusion, that their conduct was improbable and unnatural. The principle of law, laid down in Leela Ram ( dead ) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, 1999 (4) RCR ( Criminal ) (Supreme Court), was to the effect that the Court will have to bear, in mind, that different persons react differently, under different circumstances, whereas, some become speechless, some start wailing, while some run away and yet there are some who may come forward with courage. It depends upon individuals to individuals. There cannot be any set pattern of uniform rule of human reaction. To discard a piece of evidence, on Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--34--
the ground that of reaction, not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. It is, therefore, held that the conduct of both these witnesses, was neither unnatural, nor improbable. Their presence, at the time of occurrence stood duly proved. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
24. Coming to the next submission of the Counsel for the appellants, that Surender Singh, PW-3, and Kuldeep Singh, PW-17, made completely contradictory statements, in the Court, vis-a-vis their previous statements, under sections 154 and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure respectively, recorded at the time of registration of the case and during the investigation thereof, it may be mentioned here, that the same does not merit acceptance. Ex.PB, is the application, which was made by Surender Singh, before Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--35--
the Station House Officer, Police Station Palwal, immediately after the occurrence, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered. In that statement, no doubt, in the first instance, he attributed, fire arm injury to Amar Singh. However, his supplementary statement was recorded, on the same day, wherein he stated that, at the time of making application Ex.PB, he was perplexed and puzzled due to the sudden death of his brother Narbir Singh. In that statement, he stated that Nanu and Bijender fired shots from .315 bore pistols at Narbir Singh, on the pointing out of Amar Singh. The condition of the mind of a witness, in whose presence, the murder of his brother, in a cold blooded manner, had been committed, can be very well imagined. No doubt, he made a mistake regarding the attribution of specific roles, to Nanu and Bijender, accused, while submitting Ex.PB, application before the Police, but later on, on the same day, on detecting his mistake, he made a supplementary statement, attributing the correct roles to the accused, in the commission of Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--36--
crime. Thus, it could not be said that there was any contradiction, in his two statements.Valid explanation was given by Surender Singh,as to, under what circumstances, he attributed fire arm injury to Amar Singh, in the application Ex.PB,and how he corrected his mistake, in his supplementary statement, recorded on the same day. Even otherwise, such a plea was not available to the appellants, as Surender Singh and Kuldeep Singh were not confronted with their previous statements, made by them, under Sections 154 and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,respectively,during the course of investigation. Only those contradictions, could be taken into consideration,with which the witnesses were confronted, while making deposition, in the Court. In the absence of confrontation of the witnesses, with their previous statements, recorded at the time of registration of the case and at the time of investigation, no use thereof, could be made.It is settled principle of law,that the statement made under Section154 of the Code of Criminal Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--37--
Procedure can only be used for corroboration or contradiction, whereas the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could only be used for the purpose of contradiction and not for any other purpose. Under these circumstances, the statements made by both these witnesses, in the Court, constituted their substantive evidence, which was sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution, as stated above. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
25. It is, no doubt, true that the trial Court, placed reliance on Ex.PC, Ex.PF, Ex.PH, Ex.PJ, Ex.PK, Ex.PL, Ex.PQ and Ex.PR, respectively, the disclosure- cum-confession statements, made by the accused, before the Police indicating their roles, in the commission of crime. The trial Court, was completely wrong, in placing reliance, on the confessional statements, allegedly made by the accused, before the Police. These confessional statements were hit by the provisions of law, under Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--38--
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. These disclosure statements were only relevant to the limited extent under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Had the trial Court gone through the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act carefully, it would not have committed such an illegality. Even if, these disclosure- cum confessional statements are ignored, the other evidence, discussed herein above, could be said to be sufficient to prove the guilt of some of the accused indicated above. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, that the trial Court was wrong in placing reliance on Ex.PC, Ex.PF, Ex.PH, Ex.PJ, Ex.PK, Ex.PL, Ex. PQ and Ex.PR, respectively to the extent the same were hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, being correct, is accepted.
26. Now coming to the role of Brijesh alias Brij Mohan, Parmod, Ashok Kumar and Sandeep, it may be stated here, that no, credible evidence was produced, to prove their participation, in the commission of crime. No doubt, Ashok Kumar, accused allegedly got Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--39--
recovered a country made pistol, whereas Sandeep, accused, allegedly got recovered two empty cartridges. It may be stated here that the name of Ashok, accused, was not mentioned by Surender Singh, complainant, in application Ex.PB, or in his statement, in the Court. Even Kuldeep, eye witness did not mention the name of Ashok Kumar, in his statement. If the country made pistol, was lateron handed over to him by Bijender, without his knowledge that the same was used in the commission of crime, it could not be said that he ( Ashok Kumar ), was either a part and parcel of the conspiracy or had a common intention with his co-accused to commit the crime. Similarly, the name of Sandeep, was not mentioned by both these witnesses, in their statements, either as a perpetrator of crime or as a conspirator.If he was given the empty cartridges by Nanu Ram or Bijender Singh, without his knowledge,that the same were the incriminating pieces of evidence, in the case, and he allegedly produced the same, he could not be held guilty for the concealment of evidence knowingly. Brijesh alias Brij Mohan, and Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--40--
Parmod, were also neither present at the time of occurrence, nor were proved to be the conspirators. It appears that they were falsely roped in, just with a view to exaggerate the number of the accused. In Tarlok Singh and others v. The State of Punjab, 1974 , PLR 84 and Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 (Supreme Court ), 159, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the tendency to include the innocent, with the guilty, is peculiarly present in India, and it is very difficult, for the Courts to guard against this danger. The only real safeguard against the risk of condemning the innocent with the guilty, lies in insisting on independent evidence, which in some measures, implicates such accused. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Had they hatched conspiracy, with their other co-accused, for the commission of crime, their names would have certainly figured in the statements of Surender Singh, first informant, PW-3 and Kuldeep Singh, eye witness, PW-17. However, their names did not figure Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--41--
in their statements. It was also not established from the other evidence, that they were a part and parcel of the conspiracy, hatched to eliminate Narbir Singh. The participation of Brijesh alias Brij Mohan, Parmod, Ashok Kumar and Sandeep, in the commission of crime, therefore, became highly doubtful. Out of abundant caution, Brijesh alias Brij Mohan, Parmod, Ashok Kumar and Sandeep, are required to be given the benefit of doubt. The trial Court, was wrong, in recording their conviction and awarding sentence to them. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, to this extent, carries force and stands accepted.
27. No other point was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
28. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, Criminal Appeal No. 372-DB of 2007, filed by Ratti Ram and Sanwal Singh, is partly accepted, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007, filed by Bijender alias Biju and Nanu Ram, and Criminal Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007, filed by Amar Singh, are dismissed, with the modification, indicated hereunder. The judgment of Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--42--
conviction and the order of sentence qua Nanu Ram, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, qua Bijender Singh and Amar Singh, for the offence, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 instead of under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and qua Ratti Ram and Sanwal, accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, are upheld. The fine imposed is enhanced to Rs.5 lacs (Rs.1.00 lac each). In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. On recovery/deposit of the amount of fine, the same shall be paid, as compensation, to the legal heirs of deceased ( Narbir Singh ), if more than one, in equal shares.
29. Ratti Ram, appellant, however, stands acquitted of the charge, framed against him, for the offence, punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and his appeal to that extent shall stand accepted.
Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 152-DB of 2007 Crl.AppealNo.372-DB of 2007 Crl. Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 480-DB of 2007
--43--
30. Criminal Appeal No. 372-DB of 2007, filed by Brijesh alias Brij Mohan, Criminal Appeal No. 475-DB of 2007, filed by Parmod and Ashok Kumar and Criminal Appeal No. 99-SB of 2007, filed by Sandeep, appellants, are accepted. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, qua them, are set aside. They are acquitted of the charge framed against them. If they are on bail, they shall stand discharged of their bail bonds. If, they are in custody, they shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case.
31. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, within two months, in accordance with the provisions of law.
( K.S. Garewal ) ( Sham Sunder )
Judge Judge
February 11, 2009
dinesh