Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender Singh & Others vs State Of Haryana on 9 November, 2011
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000
Date of Decision : 9th November, 2011
Rajender Singh & others
.... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Parkash Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Convicts Rajender Singh, Vijay Singh and Krishan Kumar have filed the instant criminal appeal to assail their conviction and sentence ordered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide judgment dated 11.09.2000 and order dated 12.09.2000, thereby convicting the accused- appellants under Sections 323 and 328 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 328 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC, but both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Prosecution case is that on 10.08.1998 at about 9.00pm, complainant Rajinder Singh S/o Hari Ram was about to close his shop when accused Rajender Singh S/o Satbir Singh and Krishan Kumar came to his shop and asked him to accompany them to the plot of Vijay Singh accused Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000 -2- where somebody was waiting for him (complainant). The complainant locked his shop and accompanied the two accused to the plot of Vijay Singh accused where Vijay Singh accused and one Chhailu were already present. Accused Rajender Singh asked accused Vijay Singh to bring half bottle of liquor. The complainant offered them Rs.50/- for not forcing him to consume liquor, but the accused did not agree. Vijay Singh brought half bottle of liquor. A peg of liquour was served to the complainant against his wishes. After 5-10 minutes of consuming the liquor, the complainant felt giddy and uneasy. Accused Rajender Singh started beating the complainant Rajinder Singh. Five to seven slaps were given by accused Rajender Singh to the complainant. Vijay Singh inflicted two blows to the complainant with wooden arm of a cot. Krishan Kumar accused sat on the complainant's chest and tried to strangle him. The complainant raised alarm, which attracted Sarjit, Babu Lal and Rajesh. They rescued the complainant from the accused. At that time, the complainant was wearing only underwear and his other clothes along with key of lock of his shop and cash amount of Rs.1,450/- were missing. Babu Lal informed the complainant's father Hari Ram, who took the complainant to CHC Ateli. After giving first aid, the complainant was referred to Civil Hospital, Narnaul. Police was also informed by Doctor at Ateli as well as by Doctor at Narnaul. Accordingly on 11.08.1998, Head Constable Meer Singh came to the hospital but the complainant was opined to be unfit to make statement. Again on 12.08.1998, Meer Singh Head Constable came to the hospital. The complainant was opined to be fit to make statement. Thereupon, his statement was recorded on 12.08.1998 regarding the occurrence. However, Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000 -3- FIR was registered on 17.08.1998 after obtaining further report from Doctor. The case was investigated. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested. On completion of investigation, police presented report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr. P.C.) for prosecution of all the three accused under Sections 328 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
Charge under Sections 323 and 328 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. Dr. O.P. Saroha, PW-1 from CHC Ateli stated that the complainant was admitted in that hospital at 1.00 am (during night) on 11.08.1998 with history of suspected poisoning. Dr. Saroha sent ruqa to the police and gave treatment to the complainant according to his condition and symptoms.
Dr. S. P. Sharma PW-2 from General Hospital, Narnaul stated that the complainant was admitted in the said hospital on 11.08.1998 on being referred from CHC, Ateli. Treatment mentioned in the bed head ticket was given to the complainant, who had been brought with history of poisoning. The complainant remained admitted in the Hospital till 13.08.1998. Ruqa was sent to the Police. On 14.08.1998, this Doctor was away to Sonepat for Court evidence, when at his back, Meer Singh Head Constable wanted information regarding MLR. Meer Singh again came to the Hospital on 17.08.1998 and thereupon Dr. Sharma gave report that no MLR was received from CHC Ateli with the complainant. The police was Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000 -4- informed by CHC Ateli as well as by Civil Hospital Narnaul. As per bed head ticket, the complainant had clinical picture of suspected Dhatura poisoning. Dr. Sharma gave further report that the complainant was hyper active and, therefore, his gastric lavage fluid was spilled on the floor and could not be collected. Again on 03.09.1998, Dr. Sharma gave further detailed information regarding diagnosis of Dhatura poisoning.
Dr. K. K. Yadav, PW-3 stated that on 11.08.1998 he gave opinion that complainant was unfit to make statement and on 12.08.1998, he gave opinion that the complainant was fit to make statement.
Head Constable Meer Singh, PW-4 and SI Ram Bhagat PW-8 stated about the investigation of the case conducted by them.
Complainant Rajinder Singh PW-5 and Babu Lal PW-6 braodly stated according to the prosecution version.
Dharampal, Draftsman, PW-7 stated that he prepared scaled site plan in the case.
The accused in their examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent.
No evidence was led by the accused in their defence.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as already noticed hereinbefore. Feeling aggrieved, convicts have preferred the instant appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that chemical Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000 -5- name of the poison was not mentioned by Dr. Saroha in ruqa sent to the police. It was also pointed out that vomit of complainant was not collected and was not subjected to chemical examination to depict that it was case of poisoning. Dr. Sharma stated that his opinion based on clinical examination of complainant was not surer test of dhatura poisoning. It was pointed out that vomit of the complaint could be collected even from the floor with the help of cotton or spun but was not collected. There was also no symptom of consumption of liquor by the complainant. FIR was also not registered immediately on 12.08.1998 after recording statement of the complainant as there was no evidence of poisoning. It was also submitted that complainant stated that it was dark night. It was, therefore, argued that Babu Lal PW-6 whose house was a little away from the place of occurrence could not have identified the culprits. It was also pointed out that Babu Lal PW-6 admitted that Mangal grand father of Rajender Singh accused and Chandu, grand father of complainant had contested election of Sarpanch thrice and Mangal won every time. It was thus argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. It was also submitted that there is no medico legal report of the complainant nor any chemical analysis evidence regarding poisoning.
On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that statement of the complainant was recorded on 12.08.1998 without any delay because earlier the complainant was unfit to make statement. Omission of Head Constable Meer Singh to register FIR on the same day is not fatal to the prosecution case, it was contended by the State counsel. It was also argued that both Dr. O.P. Saroha PW-1 and Dr. S. P. Sharma PW-2 have Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000 -6- stated that it was case of dhatura poisoning. Dr. Sharma even gave detailed report about it, containing reasons for the said opinion. It was also submitted that Dr. Sharma has explained that vomit was not collected from the floor because the floor was not clean and there was possibility of mixing of other substance from the floor in the vomit material. Reference to bed head ticket of the complainant was also made to depict that it was a case of poisoning. It was also submitted that there is no evidence as to when grand father of Rajender Singh accused and grand father of complainant had contested the election and moreover there was no reason to implicate other two accused Vijay Singh and Krishan Kumar.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Complainant's testimony is supported by Babu Lal independent witness. There is no reason why Babu Lal would support the complainant's version. There is also no reason why the complainant would implicate all the three accused in false case. The complainant has categorically stated that after he became worldly wise, no election was contested by his grand father against grand father of Rajender Singh accused. Moreover, besides Rajender Singh, there are also two other accused. No reason has been asserted by the defence for their false implication.
Non-mentioning of chemical name of the poison in ruqa sent by Dr. Saroha to police is insignificant because it was categorically mentioned in the ruqa that it was case of suspected poisoning. Similar ruqa was sent from General Hospital, Narnaul to the Police. Dr. Sharma has categorically opined that it was case of Dhatura poisoning. He has assigned detailed reasons for the same. Consequently the accused cannot be acquitted merely Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000 -7- because there is no chemical analysis report in this regard. Dr. Sharma has explained that the complainant was hyper-active and, therefore, vomit fluid spilled on the floor and could not be collected from there as the floor was not clean. Consequently no adverse influence can be drawn against the prosecution, merely because there is no chemical analysis of the vomit of the complainant. There is sufficient explanation for the same. On the other hand, the complainant remained admitted in hospital till 13.08.1998 and his treatment as contained in bed head ticket also depicts that it was case of poisoning. It is correct that chemical analysis test would be better and surer test of poisoning than clinical opinion. However, at the same time, clinical opinion based on detailed reasons as in the instant case is also sufficient to establish that it was case of poisoning.
Absence of symptom of consumption of liquor by the complainant does not militate against the prosecution version because small quantity of liquor would not have caused any such symptom. In addition to it, the symptom, if any, of consumption of liquor was overtaken by the symptoms of poisoning.
There has been no delay in the lodging of FIR because on 11.08.1998, complainant was not fit to make statement, but he became fit to make statement on 12.08.1998 and he immediately made statement to the police regarding the occurrence giving all details. The mere fact that FIR was not registered on the same day, therefore, becomes insignificant when the complainant's version was recorded in detail in his statement.
The fact that it was dark night would not depict that Babu Lal could not have identified the accused. On the other hand, Babu Lal has Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000 -8- specifically stated that he had watched the accused properly while standing at some distance. He did not watch the accused from his own house, but went near the place of occurrence and properly identified the accused.
As regards election contested by grand father of Rajender Singh accused and grand father of the complainant, it has not come in evidence as to when they contested the last election. On the other hand, they did not contest any such election after the complainant became worldly wise. There is also no reason why the other two accused would be implicated by the complainant.
Absence of MLR of the complainant is also immaterial when there are detailed notes in the bed head ticket, which is better proof than MLR. It is further significant to notice that in the very first instance, immediately after the complainant arrived in CHC hospital at 1.00am, ruqa Exhibit PA was sent from there at 1.05am to the police mentioning it to be case of suspected poisoning. Again ruqa was sent on the same day from Civil Hospital, Narnaul mentioning it to be case of alleged history of poisoning. In these circumstances, absence of MLR becomes completely immaterial and insignificant.
For the reasons aforesaid, I conclude that prosecution evidence is cogent and credible and is sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Their conviction is well founded and is supported by reasons. Accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction is affirmed.
As regards question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for reduction in sentence, whereas learned State counsel Criminal Appeal No.855-SB of 2000 -9- opposed the said prayer.
I have carefully considered the matter.
The occurrence took place 13 years ago. During this long period, the accused have faced the agony of trial including instant appeal. Keeping in view the same and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each while maintaining the sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof as awarded by the trial Court. It is ordered accordingly.
With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the instant appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The appellants who are on bail shall surrender to their bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 9th November, 2011 'raj'