Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Son Of Chottu Ram vs Union Territory on 14 March, 2013
Author: S.S.Saron
Bench: S.S.Saron
CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008
DECIDED ON:- 14.03.2013.
Raj Kumar son of Chottu Ram,
resident of H.No.2014, Sector-44C,
Chandigarh
.......................Appellant
versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh
.......................Respondent
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH
Present Mr. H.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Ms. Ashima Mor,Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent. S.P.BANGARH,J Case of the prosecution is that Ram Saran had twin daughters namely Manju @ Madhu and Anju. Raj Kumar (appellant) is the son of Laxmi Devi, sister of Ram Saran. He was brought up by Ram Saran at his house located in Mani Majra since the childhood. Albeit, Raj Kumar appellant was married off by Ram Saran, yet he developed illicit relations with Manju @ Madhu. Both of them had eloped twice. When both families learnt about this, they dissuaded Raj Kumar appellant and Manju @ Madhu from CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 2 perpetuating that illicit relation, but they did not relent and told that they have both converted to Islam and have got married with each other.
After persuasion by the members of both the families, Raj Kumar appellant and Manju @ Madhu (deceased) promised not to meet each other in future, although, appellant had consented, therefor, with reluctance. Sometime afterwards, Raj Kumar appellant started giving threatening calls to the family of Ram Saran that whatever was decided was not acceptable to him and Manju @ Madhu is his wife. Whosoever would try to marry Manju @ Madhu, he (appellant) shall finish him. On 23.10.2002, Dharmender Kumar, brother of Manju @ Madhu (deceased) was driving scooter make 'Priya' bearing registration no.CH-01A-8594 towards Sector 17, Chandigarh, whereon, Manju @ Madhu was pillion rider. Raj Kumar appellant started chasing them from chaki chowk in his maruti car bearing registration no. CH- 03-1208 being driven by him. When Dharmender Kumar reached near smaller chowk of sectors 36-37, Chandigarh, he stopped his scooter and Raj Kumar appellant brought his car along-side their scooter,stopped it and opened its door and asked Manju @ Madhu to sit, therein, but he was rebuked by Manju @ Madhu saying that she does not want to have any further relations with him.
Raj Kumar appellant threatened to kill both Manju @ Madhu and Dharmender Kumar, if she was not to go with him. Dharmemder Kumar being frightened with this act of the appellant, retreated on his scooter towards his CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 3 house. When he had hardly covered some distance, Raj Kumar appellant again chased them on his car, being driven at a very fast speed and struck the same into their scooter from behind and sequelly, both Dharmender Kumar and Manju @ Madhu fell down from the scooter. Raj Kumar appellant after taking his car for some distance, halted the same, took U turn, drove it at a very high speed and ran the same over both Manju @ Madhu and Dharmender Kumar and latter were shifted to hospital by passers-by on their respective vehicles. Police, on receipt of information of this incident, visited Dharmender Kumar injured in PGI, Chandigarh and ASI Surinder Kumar (PW19) recorded his statement Ex.P21 on 23.10.2002, that was read over and explained to him and after admitting the genuineness and correctness, thereof, he signed the same.
After recording statement Ex.P21, ASI Surinder Kumar(PW19) put his endorsement Ex.P21/A, thereon, and sent the same to the police station, sector 36, Chandigarh, where formal FIR Ex.P55 was recorded by Raj Deep Singh, ASI. Before recording statement Ex.P21, ASI Surinder Kumar moved an application before the doctor regarding fitness of Dharmender Kumar to make statement and vide opinion Ex.P54, Dharmender Kumar was declared fit to make his statement supra Ex.P21. Appellant was arrested in this case on 27.10.2002. Manju @ Madhu succumbed to her injuries received in this incident on 27.10.2002.
After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2006 4 Station Sector 36, Chandigarh instituted police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C for short) before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appeared that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC,307 IPC and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
After presentation of police report, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C') for short) were supplied to the appellant and the case was committed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the Court of Session, that was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge, who framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, whereto, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
At the trial, prosecution examined as many as twenty two witnesses, whose deposition is as under:-
PW1 Kavita Munjal brought report regarding verification of particulars of maruti car no.CH-03-1208 and scooter no. CH-01A-8594 Ex.P1, pursuant to the application of the police.
PW2 Kishori Lal deposed that Ram Saran is his brother, who resides at sector 41, Chandigarh having three children i.e one son Dharmender Kumar and two twin daughters namely Anju and Manju @ Madhu. He deposed that he knows Raj Kumar appellant present in the Court, who is the son of brother of wife of his brother and he was born in District CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2006 5 Kangra at village Harrot (Bariwala), Post Office Karangarh, Tehsil Jaisinghpur. He deposed that his uncle Hira Lal resides at Chandigarh with his real brother Ram Saran and does not know the name of the wife of the appellant, who started residing with the family of Ram Saran around 10/12 years ago and, thereafter, they had not met him except on very rare occasions. He also deposed that he does not have any knowledge about the relation of the appellant with the daughter of Ram Saran namely Manju @ Madhu, who died in an accident, which took place on small chowk of sector 37, Chandigarh, when she was proceeding on a scooter with her brother. He further deposed that he received information on telephone regarding accident of Manju @ Madhu, but he does not know who caused the accident. This witness was declared hostile to the prosecution, and cross examined by the learned public prosecutor for the respondent before the learned trial Court.
PW3 Ram Saran deposed hat he has three children namely son Dharmender Kumar and two daughters Anju and Manju (latter is also called Madhu). He further deposed that Laxmi is his wife and they reside at Sector 41, Chandigarh in government quarter. He further deposed that he knows Raj Kumar appellant present in the Court, who is the son of the real brother of his wife Laxmi and his father's name is Chhottu Ram. He further deposed that uncle of Raj Kumar appellant brought him at Mani Majra in his childhood.
His uncle was residing with him and appellant was married at Amritsar. He further deposed that they severed their relations with the appellant since the CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2006 6 time of his marriage and he does not know the name of his wife. However, his (appellant's) marriage took place about 10/12 years ago. He also deposed that the appellant treated Manju @ Madhu like a sister when he resided with them and, thereafter, he does not know how he treated her. He further deposed that he went to attend his office on 23.10.2002 and the brother of the appellant Subhash informed him that the appellant has caused the accident with his daughter Manju @ Madhu and son Dharmender Kumar and that they have been removed to PGI.
He further deposed that he went to PGI, Chandigarh thereafter and his son Dharmender Kumar and daughter Manju @ Madhu were being treated there and condition of his daughter Madhu was precarious, who could not speak thereafter. He further deposed that his son Dharmender Kumar told him that while they were coming on scooter, appellant Raj Kumar struck his car in their scooter from behind and it was told to him at PGI that he does not know regarding the change of religion of appellant. This witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the learned public prosecutor for the respondent before the learned trial Court.
PW4 Molana Shakeel Ahmad brought the record with regard to deed of acceptance of Islam dated 02.07.2002 by Manju (deceased) daughter of Ram Saran and Raj Kumar appellant and copies Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. He also deposed that after conversion of Manju @ Madhu into Islam, her name was given as Mumtaj Begum, while Raj Kumar appellant was given CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 7 his name as Rajaq Khan after his conversion to Islam.
PW5 Hukam Chand, Constable deposed that on 30.10.2002, he was posted as Photographer at police station Sector 36, Chandigarh and was called by the Investigating Officer at the dividing road of sectors 36-37, Chandigarh. He further deposed that he took photographs Ex.P13 to Ex.P17 whose negatives are Ex.P8 to Ex.P12.
PW6 Laxmi Devi deposed that she knows Raj Kumar appellant present in the Court, who was brought to her residence when he passed matriculation examination and he started residing with them at Chandigarh. He had been imparted education by them of B.Com and was got married by them. She further deposed that he is son of her real brother and is her nephew and he (appellant) used to look at his daughter Manju @ Madhu with an evil eye. As and when, he was objected by them, he used to beat them up and they separated him from them about 12 years ago, when he was married. He had been residing separately from them for the last 12 years. He further deposed that he does not know regarding change of religion by appellant, however, his daughter Manju @ Madhu informed them regarding intimidation by the appellant that he would kill her brother in case she disclosed any of the acts to anyone. She further deposed that her daughter Manju @ Madhu kept silent on account of this threat issued to her by the appellant and she was afraid of the appellant lest he should liquidate her brother and her daughter Manju @ Madhu revealed to them about two days CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 8 prior to this occurrence only regarding threatening attitude of the appellant towards her and she does not know if appellant and Manju @ Madhu entered into any marriage by changing religion.
PW6 further deposed that, however, Manju @ Madhu told her that she was forced to change her religion by the appellant and they converted their religion and this relationship was disliked and appellant agreed to dissociate himself from Manju @ Madhu and appellant made a call to them after some time and threatened her that in case, he was not allowed to meet Manju, his daughter, he would liquidate whole of the family. He further deposed that on 23.10.2002, his son Dharmender Kumar took his daughter Manju @ Madhu with him on scooter and they were proceeding to sector 17 on their scooter and the appellant followed them in his car and directed Manju to sit in his car, but she declined to do so that she has no concern with him and appellant issued threat to her that in case she did not sit in his car, he would liquidate both of them and her son informed that appellant followed them on his car, when they turned their scooter towards their home side and by turning his car, the appellant struck the same against their scooter and dragged them upto some distance with his car and he again ran over the car over them and she was asked to reach PGI, chandigarh by his son Dharmender Kumar and she reached PGI in rickshaw and found children in a bleeding condition there. She further deposed that her daughter Manju was unconscious whereas, her son Dharmender Kumar was CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 9 conscious and talking. She further deposed that her son told this fact to her at PGI.
PW7 Savitri also deposed that she had a Priya scooter that was sold to Ram Saran about eight years ago and she does not recollect the registration number of that scooter that was registered in the name of her husband. She further deposed that she handed over the documents of the scooter to Ram Saran when sold the same to him and does not know whether he got the registration certificate transferred in his name. She, however, deposed that registration certificate of the scooter was in the name of her husband.
PW8 Babu Ram, HC deposed that on 26.10.2002, he mechanically examined Maruti car no. CH-03-1208 and scooter no. CH-01A- 8594 and prepared reports Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 respectively.
PW9 Yashpal, Constable deposed that on 04.01.2003, he was posted as draftsman in the police headquarters and he prepared scaled plan Ex.P20, on the basis of rough notes.
PW10 Dharemender Singh deposed that he had twin sisters namely Manju @ Madhu and Anju and Raj Kumar appellant is the son of brother of his mother, who was brought up and educated by his parents. He deposed that about 13/14 years ago, his parents got Raj Kumar appellant married and during that period, he was staying in their house. He developed illicit relations with his sister Manju @ Madhu. He further deposed that even CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 10 after his marriage, appellant took Manju @ Madhu out with him at least twice and they remained for couple of days away from the house on both the occasions. He further deposed that when they learnt about it from their relatives, they dissuaded them from continuing illicit relations with his sister Manju @ Madhu, but appellant told that since he and Manju @ Madhu have converted to Islam and got married with each other.
PW10 further deposed that being a matter of daughter in the family, they did not flare up the matter further and decided to bury it, even though, Raj Kumar expressed his displeasure and started threatening them on phone saying that compromise brought by the relatives was not acceptable to him, as Manju was his married wife and he would not permit her being separated from him at any cost and if Manju @ Madhu was married to someone else or prevented from meeting him, he would liquidate whole of the family. He further deposed that on 23.10.2002, he was going on his scooter 'Priya' bearing registration no. CH-01A-8594 towards sector 17, Chandigarh and his sister was a pillion rider, thereon, and when they reached intersection of sectors 36-37 and sectors 41-42, Raj Kumar appellant came driving in a maruti car of white colour bearing registration no. CH-03-1208 and started following them, when he reached near chowk of sectors 36-37, he stopped his scooter and Raj Kumar appellant halted his car parallel to the scooter and by opening the door of the car asked Manju to sit in his car; Manju refused to sit in the car saying that she was having no relation with him CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 11 and would not go with him. He further deposed that Raj Kumar appellant threatened both of them that if Manju @ Madhu was not to go with him, he would kill both of them. Being frightened, he started driving his scooter back towards sector 41 and had hardly covered some distance, when appellant came driving the car at a very fast speed towards them and he out of fear, was just about to halt his scooter but before that, Raj Kumar appellant struck his car into his scooter from behind and sequelly, both of them fell on the road alongwith the scooter, that was dragged at some distance by the car.
He further deposed that then the appellant stopped his car at a distance of 70/80 steps and took a sharp U turn and ran over the car over both of them and they both got injured; appellant, thereafter, fled away from the scene in his car, while he was shifted from the place of occurrence to PGI, Chandigarh, where on 23.10.2002, police came to him and recorded his statement Ex.P21, that was signed by him after admitting it to be correct; as also, he was medico-legally examined at PGI, Chandigarh. He further deposed that on 24.10.2002, he accompanied the police to the place of occurrence and the investigating officer prepared rough site plan of place of occurrence at his instance. He further deposed that he does not know who carried Manju from the scene of occurrence to PGI, however, she succumbed to her injuries in the PGI on 27.10.2002.
PW11 Dr.Lakhvir Kaur Cheema, deposed that on 27.10.2002, while posted at Emergency Medical Officer at General Hospital, Sector 16, CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 12 Chandigarh, she conducted postmortem examination on the corpse of Manju @ Madhu that was brought to the hospital by Vijay Kumar, Constable of Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh at about 02:30 pm and the corpse was identified by her father Ram Saran and Kishori Lal and she found the following injuries on the corpse:-
1. Multiple abrasions of the size of 5 cms x 6 cms and 6 cms x 6 cms approximately on both sides of the face;
2. Multiple abrasion on the left arm and forearm, both surfaces;
3. Multiple abrasions on right arm and forearm both surfaces;
4. Multiple abrasions and bruises at the back more towards right side;
5. Open wound at the back on right lumbar region approximately of the size of 15 cms x 10 cms, muscles were visible from this wound;
6. Multiple abrasions on the right leg and right lower leg;
7. Multiple abrasions on left lower leg;
8. Bruises on left thigh;
9. On exploration of skull, found haemorrhage on right parietal region, haemorrhage on base of the skull and sub dural haemorrhage.
PW11 further deposed that, in her opinion, cause of death of Manju @ Madhu was sudden cardio respiratory arrest due to septicemia and excessive haemorrhage due to head injuries and abdominal injuries, which led to shock and were sufficient to cause death in the normal course of CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 13 nature.
PW11 also brought the postmortem register and proved the carbon copy of postmortem report Ex.P22 of Manju @ Madhu (deceased). She also deposed that in her opinion, a period of five days had probably elapsed between the receipt of injury and death and period of less than twelve hours had elapsed between death and the postmortem examination. She further deposed that she handed over blood sample drawn from the corpse and put that in a glass phial that was sealed into a parcel with her seal bearing impression 'LC' and she handed over that parcel alongwith corpse and its belongings, copy of postmortem report, inquest papers and special seal to Surinder Kumar, ASI, sample parcel, Ex.P22/A was shown to her during her deposition and she deposed that seal with parcel, whereon, now there is a seal of Centre Forensic Science Laboratory. She further deposed that she was instructed by the Medical Superintendent of Government Hospital, Sector 16,Chandigarh vide Ex.P23 to conduct the autopsy.
PW12 Manjit Singh, Constable deposed that on 26.10.2002 on the asking of Surinder Pal Singh, ASI, he went to police station and took three photographs of the car Ex.P24 to P26, whose negatives are Ex.P24/A to Ex.P26/A. PW13 Vijay Kumar, Inspector also deposed that on 27.10.2002, he was posted as Station House Officer of Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh and he took over the investigation of this case on that day and CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 14 added offence under Section 302 IPC on receipt of information from PGI that Manju @ Madhu had succumbed to her injuries there and reached PGI, where, he prepared inquest report Ex.P30, recorded statements of father and uncle of the deceased and sent the corpse of Manju @ Madhu from PGI, Chandigarh to the mortuary of General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh for autopsy vide application Ex.P23 that was conducted and before postmortem, clothes worn by Manju @ Madhu at the time of accident were handed over by her father that were sealed into a parcel, which was seized vide memo Ex.P32. Parcel was opened during the deposition of this witness that contained shirt, payjami, dupatta and bra Ex.P33 to Ex.P36 respectively. He also deposed that the dead body of Manju @ Madhu was handed over to her family members vide receipt Ex.P4. He further deposed that on the evening of 27.10.2002, appellant was arrested from near Rain Basera, Sector 17, Chandigarh vide arrest memo Ex.P38; on 19.01.2003, he examined Mohd. Shakeel of Jama Maszid, Mani Majra, who was working as Maulvi there and verified from him correctness of Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, final report was completed and submitted in the Court.
PW14 Rajbir Singh, Head Constable tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P39.
PW15 Budh Singh, Head Constable also deposed that on 23.10.2002, he was posted as MHC in Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh. He brought the daily diary register of that police station and proved certified CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 15 copy of entry no.36 of 2002 Ex.P40.
PW16 Gurcharan Singh, Head Consable also deposed that on 26.10.2002, he was posted as HC at police station sector 36,Chandigarh and was a member of party headed by Surinder Kumar, ASI and they had gone to village Jangpura at Banur-Rajpura road and a car make maruti was found parked on the kacha path of Banur-Rajpura road in the area of Jangpura, that was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P41, which was attested by him. He also deposed that registration certificate Ex.P42 of the car was recovered from inside the car. He also deposed that on 01.11.2002, he handed over three sealed parcels of this case by MHC Rajbir Singh of police station Sector 36, Chandigarh alongwith docket and some papers which he deposited with CFSL, Chandigarh on the same day in an intact condition and receipt given to him by the laboratory supra was handed over by him to Rajbir Singh, MHC.
PW17 Dr.Virender Pal deposed that in the year 2003, he was running his office under the name and style of M/s. Vaishnavi Enterprises at SCO No.228, Sec-40-D, first floor, Chandigarh and that on 23.10.2002, he was driving his car bearing registration no.3796, make Scorpio from his house situated in sector 16A, Chandigarh to his place of work that is located in SCO No.228, Sec-40-D, First Floor, Chandigarh and when he reached near the dividing chowk of sectors 36-37, Chandigarh at about 09:00/10:00 a.m, he saw driver of a maruti car hitting that into a scooter and resultantly, CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 16 both the occupants of scooter male and female fell down on the road. He also deposed hat the appellant (accused) present in the Court was probably the driver of that car, who after having his car to some distance, took a sudden U turn and brought back his car and hit into both of the female and male supra and sequelly both of them sustained injuries. He further deposed that the girl was badly injured and thereafter, driver of the car sped away therefrom in car, whose registration number he could not recollect. He further deposed that he lifted the injured male in his vehicle and carried him to PGI, Chandigarh, where he was admitted, while injured girl was carried in another vehicle of some other person, who was also present there and she was also likewise brought to PGI, Chandigarh. He also deposed that the injured who was carried by him in his vehicle had told him his name and address, but he did not remember on that day. He also deposed that the injured had otherwise told him that the person who caused injuries by driving the car was ex-husband or something like that of injured girl. He further deposed that now he rembered that he was going on his Honda City car bearing registration no.3991 and his statement was recorded.
PW18 Mahipal Rana deposed that he has been working as a stamp vendor in Estate Office, Chandigarh since 1990. He deposed that as per entry no.22176 on 20.06.2002, he had sold stamp paper of the denomination of ` 5/- in the name of Raj Kumar son of Chottu Ram, resident of house no.2014, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh for the purpose of being used as CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 17 affidavit. He also deposed that the person who had come to purchase stamp paper had appended his signature on the register.
PW19 Surinder Kumar, ASI, Crime Branch, Sector 11, Chandigarh deposed that on 23.10.2002 he was posted at sector 36, Chandigarh and during the course of patrolling, he received a wireless message regarding an accident having occurred on dividing road of sectors 36/37. Thereupon, he reached there and noticed scooter make Priya, of blue grey colour bearing registration no.CH-01-A-8594 lying fallen on the road in a damaged condition. He also noticed skid marks and scratches on the road. A helmet of black colour Ex.P43, a pair of brown colour gents shoe Ex.P44 and pair of female chappal Ex.P45, a small lady handkerchief Ex.P46 and blood stains at two places on the road, a broken number plate Ex.P47 and all these items but for blood stained were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P48, that was attested by Rajesh Kumar, Constable.
PW19 also deposed that the blood lying on the road was taken up by him with the help of cotton swab in two different glass phials, that were sealed into two parcels which were sealed by him with his seal bearing impression 'SK' at three places. These were produced during the deposition of this witness as Ex.P49 and Ex.P50, which bore the seal of CFSL, Chandigarh and these parcels were opened during the deposition of this witness. He also deposed that he got the place of incident photographed from Hukam Chand, Constable who took photographs Ex.P3 to Ex.P7, whose CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 18 negatives are Ex.P8 to Ex.P12. He also deposed that he learnt from the spot that a person driving car no. CH-03-1208 make maruti of white colour tried to crush the riders of scooter no. CH-01-A-8594 and he flashed message on wireless giving number of that car and he was also told that occupants of the scooter had already been shifted to PGI, Chandigarh by some passers-by in vehicle. He further deposed that leaving Constable Rakesh Kumar at the spot, he went to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh to look for the injured, but they were not found there and then he went to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, where, too, they were not found and, thereafter, he received a message from wireless about the injured of this case namely Dharmender Kumar and Manju @ Madhu lying hospitalized at PGI, Chandigarh and he alongwith fellow police officials went there, moved applications Ex.P51 and Ex.P52 with the attending doctor to enquire about the fitness of the injured to make statement.
PW19 further deposed that injured Manju @ Madhu was declared unfit to make statement vide Ex.P53 and Dharemnder Kumar was declared fit to do so vide Ex.P54, whereafter, he recorded statement of Dharmender Kumar Ex.P21, whereon, he put his endorsement Ex.P21/A and sent the same to police station, Sector 36, Chandigarh through constable, where formal FIR Ex.P55 was registered by Raj Deep Singh, ASI. He also deposed that he also examined Kishori Lal under Section 161 Cr.P.C in the premises of PGI and, thereafter, returned to the spot. He drew rough site CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 19 plan Ex.P56 of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes and returned to police station and deposited the case property with Raj Deep Singh, MMHC. On 24.10.2002, he again went to PGI, where Ram Saran and Smt. Laxmi Devi, parents of Manju @ Madhu met him and he recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He deposed that Manju was still unconscious by then and on the same day, Ram Saran produced photocopies of Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, that were seized vide memo Ex.P57. He also deposed that efforts to arrest the appellant remained unsuccessful on that day too and on 26.10.2002, he was informed that car used in the accident was lying abandoned on Banur-Rajpura, road, 3 km from Banur and he reached there alongwith fellow police officials, where car no. CH-03-1208 Ex.P42 was found, that was seized vide memo Ex.P41. He prepared rough site plan of place of recovery of car Ex.P48.
PW19 also deposed that car and its registration certificate were brought to police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, that were deposited and before getting the car photographed from Manjit Singh, Constable in the police station itself, the same were deposited with MMHC of the police station. He also deposed that the photographs of the car taken by him Ex.P24 to Ex.P26 and negatives, thereof, Ex.P27 to P29 were shown to him during his deposition. He also deposed that he got the car ibid mechanically tested from Babu Lal, HC, who gave his report Ex.P19. He further deposed that on 27.10.2002, he was informed about the death of Manju @ Madhu in CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 20 PGI, while he was present in police station at about 09:40 a.m and subsequent investigation was taken over by Vijay Kumar, SHO, to whom he accompanied to PGI, Chandigarh alongwith other fellow police officials, where inquest report Ex.P30 on the corpse of Manju @ Madhu was prepared and Ram Saran, father of Manju @ Madhu handed over blood stained clothes of Manju Ex.P33 to Ex.P36 to Vijay Kumar, Inspector, that were seized vide memo Ex.P32, which was attested by him (PW19) and Ishwar SI and Ram Saran. He further deposed that Vijay Kumar, Inspector carried the corpse of Manju @ Madhu to General hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh and he accompanied Vijay Kumar, Inspector and postmortem on the corpse of Manju @ Madhu was conducted there. He was also shown the scooter Ex.P60 and car Ex.P61 during his deposition.
PW20 Karan Puri deposed that he has been practicing as an Advocate since 1992 and that on 26.06.2002, Raj Kumar appellant and one Manju had come to him for identification purpose, as they wanted to swear their respective affidavits mark D and mark F, that were shown to him. He further deposed that he identified Raj Kumar appellant and Manju. He again said that deponent had affixed their signatures in his presence and he had not accompanied them to the Executive Magistrate.
PW21 Dr.Edmund Moses, Sr. Resident deposed that during the year 2002/2003, he worked with Dr.Vidya Negi for about one and half years and saw him signing and writing many a time and therefore, he was CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 21 conversant with his handwriting and signatures and could identify them. He further deposed that Dr.Vidya Negi has since left the services of PGI, Chandigarh and is presently in some Gulf country. He deposed that the report Ex.PW21/A is in the handwriting of Dr.Vidya Negi and bears his signatures. He also proved skigrams Ex.P21/B, Ex.P21/C, Ex.P21/D, Ex.P21/E and Ex.P21/F and as per Ex.P21/A, Dr.Vidya Negi after going through Ex.P21/B to Ex.P21/F had found a fracture on the outer third of right clavicle and that was reported in Ex.P21/A. PW22 Ram Singh, Medical Record Technician deposed that he has been working in PGI and since last 30 years, Dr. Toijam Soni Lyngdoh worked as senior resident in the department of General Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh in the year 2002 and he had been seeing Dr.Toijam Soni Lyngdoh appending his signatures many a time and is conversant with his handwriting and signatures and could identify them. He further deposed that he has seen Ex.PW22/A to Ex.PW22/E, whereby Dr.Toijam Soni Lyngdoh had issued death notification form in his handwriting and signatures. He also deposed that Dr.Sameer Aggarwal also remained posted as Asstt. Professor in PGI, Chandigarh in the year 2002 and he is conversant with his handwriting and signatures and could identify the same. He also deposed that he has seen Ex.PW22/B in respect to Dharmender and could identify the same. He also identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr.Soni on Ex.PW22/C, whereby, latter had intimated the police post at PGI, Chandigarh CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 22 about the death of Manju @ Madhu. He also deposed that Dr.Devinder remained in the Emergency Medical Wing in the year 2002 and he also deposed that vide Ex.PW22/D, Dr.Davinder had issued death notification form in his handwriting and signatures, which he identified. He also deposed that Dr. Benny Sarkar remained posted as SMO in the Emergency Medical wing of PGI, Chandigarh. He also proved Ex.PW22/F issued by Dr.Benny Sarkar which is death notification form in his handwriting and signatures.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, he denied the allegations of prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. He gave his own version that he has been falsely implicated in this case because of his strained relations with Dharmender Kumar and Ram Saran.
Appellant was called upon to enter in defence, but he closed the same without examining any witness in defence.
After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment of conviction, convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and vide impugned order of sentence, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default, thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
Aggrieved, thereagainst, appellant, who was accused before the learned trial Court, has come up in this appeal with a prayer for acceptance, CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 23 thereof, and for his acquittal of the charge framed against him by the learned trial Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned trial Court failed to make out incisive analysis of the facts of case made out from the record and decided the case only on the basis of presumptions and assumptions without taking into consideration the cross examination conducted upon the prosecution witnesses. He also contended that mens- rea in this case never existed in the mind of the appellant and motive is also totally missing in this case on the part of the appellant. While on the contrary, Dharmender Kumar complainant had a motive to get rid of deceased who happened to be his sister. He also contended that there is evidence on record that the entire family had been defamed due to act and conduct of the sister of the complainant and, therefore, latter himself had a motive to eliminate the deceased in order to save the honour and respect of his family.
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned trial Court failed to consider the manner in which the alleged occurrence had taken place, which clearly establishes that it was merely a case of accident, wherein, appellant rather was not even negligent, but Dharmender Kumar complainant himself had brought the scooter in front of the car of the appellant, thereby, causing injuries to his own sister due to her previous act and conduct, as the family was being defamed by her act and conduct. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 24 motor accident claim has been filed by the brother and mother of the deceased against the appellant before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chandigarh and from this, it is made out that the deceased died in a road accident, as also, complainant received injuries in the road accident. So, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the road accident case wherein, deceased received injuries and succumbed, thereto, and the complainant received injuries has been blown out of proportion and has been converted into the case of murder of Manju @ Madhu.
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the appellant and Manju @ Madhu developed illicit relations and both of them even eloped twice as per observations of the learned trial Court and both families dissuaded them from continuing this illicit relations. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that Dharmender Kumar complainant had a motive to kill his sister, who was drawing bad names to their family and the family was defamed by her act, while appellant is stated to have embraced Islam and by this act complainant side was perturbed party and not the appellant qua facing social stigma in the society. So, it was contended that the appellant has been wrongly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court and judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent contended that the latter has been able to prove its case beyond CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 25 shadow of reasonable doubt before the learned trial court by leading cogent, corroborating and reliable evidence of unimpeachable character and, therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality, therein, which may be upheld and affirmed and appeal may be dismissed.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and have perused the record of the learned trial Court.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the road accident has been blown out of proportion and that Manju @ Madhu (deceased) died in the road accident that was caused by her brother Dharmender Kumar complainant (PW10) by driving his scooter no.CH-01A- 8594 in a rash and negligent manner. But this contention is devoid of merit. No motive can be ascribed to the brother of the deceased to implicate the appellant falsely in this case. Police investigated the case. If it would have been a case of accident, then the driver of the offending vehicle would have been arraigned under Section 304-A and 279 IPC. From the circumstances existing at the spot of incident, the simple case of accident was not made out. So, it cannot be held to be a case of road accident resulting into death of Manju @ Madhu.
It has come in the testimony of Dharmender Kumar,complainant (PW10), brother of the deceased and Laxmi Devi, mother of the deceased CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 26 (PW6) that Raj Kumar appellant was residing with them, who was brought up and educated by them and even was married off. It has come in their evidence that he developed illicit relations with the deceased and obviously that could not be swallowed by the family members and both appellant Raj Kumar and Manju @ Madhu promised not to continue this relationship, but that promise was not swallowed by the appellant, who, on the contrary, started intimidating Manju @ Madhu (deceased) and he wanted to possess her at every cost. Evidence of PW10 and PW6 regarding disproving relationship between the deceased and the appellant, during cross examination could not be shattered. Family members of deceased could not be held to be guilty in any manner in dissuading the appellant and the deceased from continuing their illicit relationship. It is the case of the appellant that he is the husband of the deceased. They, indubitably are governed by Hindu Marriage Act in case of marriages. Indubitably, appellant and Manju @ Madhu (deceased) were cousins. It may be mentioned here that Laxmi Devi is the mother of deceased, while appellant is son of brother of Laxmi Devi (PW6).
The appellant and deceased had thus, spinda relationship and were in the degree of prohibited relationship for the purpose of solemnizing marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As per definition of degrees of prohibited relations given in Section 3(g)(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, two persons are said to be within the degrees of prohibited relationship, if the CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 27 two are brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, or children of brother and sister or of two brothers or of two sisters. The appellant and deceased were children of brother and sister respectively. Therefore, their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was void. One condition for Hindu marriage under Section 5(v) is that parties are not spindas of each other. In other words, a marriage may be solemnized between two Hindus, if they are not spindas of each other.
So, this marriage between two cousins was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but appellant remained a crazy man. He wanted to perpetuate this void marriage and in order to perpetuate this void marriage, he alongwith deceased embraced Islam, as can be seen from documents Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, but this marriage would remain void throughout. Reference can be made to Lilly Thomas and others v. Union of India (2000)6 Supreme Court Cases, 224 , wherein, it was held that void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act could not be validated by conversion to Islam. Therefore, conversion of appellant and deceased to Islam had not validated their marriage which was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The parents and family members and relatives did not want this void marriage to continue and the family started living separately. The matter should have been ended there. Appellant should have behaved like a responsible citizen. Ignorance of law is not an excuse to anyone. It was required of the appellant that he should not have contracted void marriage and it was required of him to know that his conversion to Islam would not validate this marriage. The appellant, on the day of occurrence spotted deceased and his brother on scooter no. CH-01A-8594.
It is the case of the appellant that Manju @ Madhu was injured in some road accident with some unknown vehicle and he has been implicated falsely, as a result of his enmity with the family of the deceased, because of CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 28 contracting marriage with the deceased. This stand of the appellant is not corroborated by any evidence, as he failed to show that on the day of incident, he was somewhere else than at the place of incident. Evidence of PW10 is very much relevant that has been produced in the earlier parts of this judgment, which envisages that on the day of occurrence i.e on 23.10.2002, he was driving his scooter 'Priya' bearing registration no.CH- 01A-8594 towards sector 17, Chandigarh, whereon, his sister was pillion rider and when they reached intersection of sectors 36-37 and sectors 41-42, Chandigarh, Raj Kumar appellant came driving in a maruti car of white colour bearing registration No. CH-03-1208 and started following them.
This part of the testimony of PW10 could not be shattered during cross examination. No motive can be ascribed to him to depose falsely in this case. The appellant started following them and when they reached near chowk of sectors 36/37. PW10 stopped his scooter and Raj Kumar appellant halted his car parallel to the scooter and by opening the door of the car asked Manju @ Mahdu (deceased) to sit in his car and the latter refused, thereupon, appellant threatened both of them. Being frightened, PW10 started driving his scooter back towards sector 41 and when he had hardly covered some distance, appellant came driving the car at a very fast speed towards them and struck the same into his scooter from behind and sequelly both fell down on the road alongwith the scooter that was dragged by the car to some distance.
The matter did not end. The appellant did not stop his criminal act. He did not feel complacent with his criminal act by hitting the scooter of PW10 and deceased from behind. Appellant then stopped his car after covering the distance of about 70/80 steps and took a sharp U turn and in that process, he ran over the car over both PW10 and Manju @ Madhu (deceased) and injured them and, thereafter, appellant fled away from the CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 29 scene in his car.
There was no sudden provocation on the part of PW10 and the deceased to commit this offence. Both brother and sister by chance came to the market realizing a little that they will be spotted by the appellant. If the appellant had injured PW10 and the deceased in the road accident, then the deceased may not have succumbed to her injuries received by un- intentionally hitting of car by appellant to their scooter. But when the appellant covered some distance of 70/80 steps from the place where the incident occurred first wherein, both PW10 and deceased fell down on the ground, he made up his mind to kill both of them and that is why he took U turn and ran over his car over both of them. Appellant, thus, had candid intention to kill the deceased and her brother and ultimately she (Manju @ Madhu) succumbed to her injuries in PGI on 27.10.2002. Evidence of PW10 clearly envisages that it was the appellant who first hit him and the deceased by his car and then after covering 70/80 steps retreated and by taking U turn of his car, ran the same over PW10 and his sister Manju @ Madhu (deceased).
The motive was there with the appellant to commit the murder of deceased, as it is made out that he was incapable of forgetting her, although he married another lady, but his possessiveness over deceased remained very strong within him. As already has come on the record, he eloped with the deceased twice for days together. His possessiveness was so strong that he baptized Islam alongwith Manju @ Madhu (deceased) to validate his marriage.
Parents of the appellant prevailed upon the deceased. She did not revolt against the decision of the parents to sever her relations with the deceased. Obviously, deceased was to be married somewhere, that lurked in the mind of the appellant. He was thinking that if Manju @ Madhu (deceased) is married somewhere else, then it would have been difficult for CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 30 him to bring her back as his wife. These circumstances indicate that the appellant was not implicated falsely.
Although PW2 Kishori Lal and PW3 Ram Saran did not support the prosecution version and were declared hostile to the prosecution, but that could not have any bearing on the instant case, as they were not present at the time of occurrence. If they would have been present at the time of occurrence, in that event, it could be held that the prosecution version has not been proved. In this case, PW10 Dharmender Kumar and PW17 Dr.Varinder Pal are the eye witnesses. Both deposed that it was the appellant, who ran over the car over the deceased, as also, hit PW10. These witnesses were subjected to searching cross examination by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned trial Court, but cross examination failed to elicit anything worth the name which could possibly cause any dent in their testimony. They are not alleged to have any animus or hostility against the appellant prior to the day of incident.
PW4 deposed about the conversion of the appellant and Manju @ Madhu to Islam. His testimony also could not be shattered. Their correct addresses were given to PW4, which tallied with their addresses, where they have been living. When conversion of the appellant into Islam is proved through the testimony of PW4, it becomes a case where the appellant wanted to have the deceased as his wife at every cost and when his possessiveness over the deceased could not take place actually, he turned crazy and he thought it better to eliminate her by an act of running his car over her by taking a U turn with an intention to kill her.
Sensuality is a fact that must have right place. Incestia has been completely out lawed with the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein, spinda marriage within the prohibited degree is void. Appellant in this case made sensual advances to his cousin, because of his proximity with her, as CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 31 both were living in the same house. She had to succumb to the sensual advances. The matter, even did not end here. The appellant remained a determined lot and converted to Islam alongwith the deceased to perform the marriage under the Islam. When the family members asked both of them to sever relationship, that must have been adhered to by the appellant and he should have completely forgotten his past sofaras his matrimony with the deceased was concerned.
Appellant remained obstinate in committing wrong, one after the other and ultimately his obstinacy resulted in wiping out of an innocent person from the scene of this world and only appellant is the perpetor of her murder. It is no doubt true, that the PW10 Dharmender Kumar did not report the threats of appellant to liquidate Manju @ Madhu (deceased) to the police, but that cannot be a ground for granting benefit of doubt to the appellant in this case. Most of the times, these threats are not taken seriously and such petty things are not blown out of proportion. Every human being wants to bury these types of things. Apart from that, the family members of the deceased were under trauma for an unmarried girl of the family developed illicit relations with the appellant, with whom her marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act could not take place and this voidness of marriage under the Act supra could not be validated by their conversion to Islam, as already observed. So, when the family was in this type of trauma, they thought it apt not to report the threats to the police being given by the appellant to them.
There is delay of about 5 hours in reporting the matter to the police from the time of accident till the recording of statement Ex.P21 of Dharmender Kumar (PW10) that was recorded by Surinder Kumar, ASI (PW19). There is nothing on the record to indicate that these five hours were used by PW10 and other members of the family to fabricate the case to implicate the appellant falsely. This delay cannot be said to be inordinate, CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 32 and has been explained properly. This is fact that Dharmender Kumar (PW10) was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh. Surinder Kumar, ASI (PW19) candidly deposed that after receipt of information about the incident, he first rushed to the place of incident from where Dharmender Kumar (PW10) and the deceased had already been removed to the hospitals. Surinder Kumar, ASI (PW19) then went to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, where he could not find both the injured admitted there, on inquiry. From that hospital, he went to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, where, too injured were not found admitted and ultimately he reached PGI, Chandigarh, where injured were admitted and then he moved application before the doctor to know as to whether injured were fit to make their statements for the purposes of registration of FIR. In this exercise, Surinder Kumar, ASI (PW19) had to take time and no motive can be ascribed to him to favour the complainant. Even, Dharmender Kumar (PW10) being in injured condition himself could not go to the police to report the matter. So, in these circumstances, it must follow that the delay has been sufficiently explained.
PW17 Dr.Varinder Pal Singh, as already held, had no enmity with the appellant. Indeed, he has no prior acquaintance with the appellant or with the family members of the deceased. He came to the place of occurrence naturally and what was deposed by him was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court. Identity of the appellant has been established through the testimony of PW10 Dharmender Kumar. PW17 also saw a maruti car CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 33 being hit into a scooter by its driver and sequelly, both the persons travelling on the scooter, a male and a female, fell on the road and thereafter, driver of the car took a sudden U turn and ran the same over both male and female, who had fallen on the ground. This deposition of PW17 was suffice to corroborate the testimony of PW10 Dharmender Kumar. He carried the injured Dharmender Kumar (PW10) in his car to PGI, Chandigarh and he acted as a responsible citizen. It is no doubt true, that his statement was not recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C for three months, but that will not be suffice for discarding his testimony, as he had left his name and address at PGI, Chandigarh and from the records of the latter, police officials learnt his name and address and then went to him for recording his statement, which has been explained by PW17 that he wanted o tell the occurrence to the attending doctor, who advised him to tell the same to the police. No identification parade was required to be arranged for identifying the appellant from PW17. The identity of the appellant was sufficiently explained by PW10 Dharmender Kumar.
It is no doubt true, that the driver of the other car, wherein, Manju @ Madhu deceased was carried from the place of incident to the PGI, Chandigarh, was not joined during investigation. Regarding this, suffice it to say that an independent witness PW17 had already been associated during investigation and in view of his participation in the investigation, the joining of driver of the car, who carried the deceased to PGI, Chandigarh from the CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 34 place of incident cannot be given much significance.
Cause of death of Manju @ Madhu has been proved by Dr.Lakhvir Kaur Cheema (PW11), who found, as many as, eight external injuries on her corpse. According to her, cause of death of Manju @ Madhu was due to septicemia and excessive haemorrhage due to head injury and abdominal injury, which led to shock and sudden cardio respiratory arrest. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that septicemia had been cause of death of the deceased, that shows that she was not given proper medical aid. Regarding this contention, suffice it to say that as per Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC, where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have been caused death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment, the death might have been prevented. So, now it is not open to the appellant to say that although, he caused injuries to the deceased, yet she could not succumb, thereto, if proper medical aid would have been given to him.
As per the testimony of PW1, car bearing registration No. CH-03- 1208 is owned by the appellant. There is no reason to disbelieve this testimony. Photographs of the car are Ex.P24 to Ex.P26 and report Ex.P18 and the opinion of PW8 established that car did not have an impact of collision between it and the scooter and the report Ex.P19 of PW8 confirms that scooter was badly hit from behind by the car. The use of the car of the appellant in this occurrence has been proved and this car was lateron CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 35 recovered by the police during investigation. It is not the case of the appellant that someone else was driving his car on the date of accident or that the same has been stolen from him by some unknown person and due to rash and negligent driving of this car by that unknown person, incident resulting into death of Manju @ Madhu (deceased) occurred.
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that even if the death of the deceased was caused by he appellant, the case falls under Section 304 (1) IPC. He placed reliance upon Rampal Singh vs. State of U.P 2013(1) RCR(Criminal) 363, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, accused and deceased were both brothers; who had altercation, deceased challenged the accused to shoot him if he dared; on this, accused fired rifle shot resulting in death of deceased. It was held that the accused was guilty of offence under Section 304 (I) IPC. In this judgment, it was also held that there was no previous animosity between them. Rather, relationship between them were cordial.
We have examined this judgment, but do not find applicability, thereof, to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the case in hand, there was animosity between the family of the deceased and the appellant. It was not a sudden fight. The appellant, on seeing the deceased and her brother, hit their scooter and then took a U turn and ran over his car over them. He had sufficient time to think about his act. So, the case of the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC and not under Section CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 36 304(I) IPC, as contended.
Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance upon Sudhakar vs. State of Maharashtra 2012(4) RCR(Criminal) 873, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, father killed his son, who was in drinking habit and used to create ruckus in house, accused was convicted under Section 304(I) IPC. We fail to understand as to how this judgment applies to the case of the appellant for convicting him for commission of lesser offence under Section 304(I) IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance upon Arjun vs. State of Maharashtra ,2012(2) RCR(Criminal) 850, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, it was held that under Section 99 IPC, the injury which is inflicted by a person exercising the right should commensurate with the injury with which he is threatened. The accused need not to prove the existence of right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt and it is enough for him to show as in a civil case that preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea. It was also held that right of private defence cannot be used to do away with a wrong doer unless the person concerned has a reasonable cause to fear with otherwise death or grievous hurt might ensue in which case that person would have fully measure of right to private defence. It was held that facts show that there was no pre- meditation and the act was committed in a heat of passion and the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner and that there CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 37 th was a fight between the parties. It was held that the case falls under 4 Exception to Section 300 IPC and the conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304(I) IPC.
We fail to understand as to how this judgment is applicable for convicting and sentencing the appellant for lesser offence under Section 304(I) IPC. There was no provocation or attack from the side of the deceased and her brother PW10. Both were travelling on scooter on the day of incident. The appellant on seeing them followed them in his car and stopped the car alongside the scooter, opened the door of the car and asked the deceased to sit in the car. This was rather a provocation caused by the appellant to the deceased and her brother, who acted responsibly and tried to save themselves from the appellant. When the deceased and her brother did not act according to the desire of the appellant, the latter followed them on the car, hitting them and both fell down on the ground and scooter was dragged. The matter did not end here. The appellant drove car for some distance and then made up his mind to eliminate both of them and took a U turn and ran over the car over both of them and unfortunately PW10 Dharmender Kumar survived this attack, but his sister succumbed to injuries received in this incident on 27.10.2002, despite providing her best medical aid. So, there was no provocation from the side of the complainant and the deceased and the appellant took an undue advantage of the soft attitude of the deceased and his brother and acted in a cruel manner. No benefit of CRA NO.D-564-DB OF 2008 38 Arjun's case (supra) can be accorded to the appellant.
We, therefore, conclude that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are devoid of merit which are, hereby, repelled. We, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence that are, hereby, upheld and affirmed.
Resultantly, appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(S.S.SARON ) (S.P. BANGARH)
JUDGE JUDGE
March 14,2013
mamta
1.Whether the Reporters of the Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No/Yes
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? No/Yes
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No/Yes