Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mangal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 9 October, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
Criminal Appeal No.251-DB of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.251-DB of 2007
Date of Decision:09.10.2012
Mangal Singh ......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
***
Present: Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. H.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
This appeal has been filed by Mangal Singh son of Rajinder, resident of Farman, Police Station, Meham, District Rohtak against the judgment and order dated 4.10.2006 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") as also against the order of sentence of even date whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, besides, imposing fine of Rs 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He has also been convicted under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution as recorded in FIR No.172 dated 7.7.2004, Police Station City Sonepat, under Sections 302/307/120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act is that on 7.7.2004, a telephonic message Criminal Appeal No.251-DB of 2007 2 was received in Police Station City, Sonepat that an under-trial has been fired upon in Court premises and the injured has been removed to Civil Hospital, Sonepat. SI Ram Mehar, Incharge, Police Post Gohana Road, Sonepat, rushed to Civil Hospital, Sonepat and was informed that the injured undertrial had been brought to appear as an accused before the Fast Track Court at Sonepat. The injured had been referred to PGIMS Rohtak. The injured was Kulbir Singh (deceased).
Ashok Kumar/PW-16 deposed that he had come to the Court Complex at Sonepat to collect some documents from Mr. Nawal Singh Advocate for handing over the same to an Advocate engaged in the High Court for filing bail application of his cousin Vijay and Kulbir (deceased). Kulbir Singh was brought to the Fast Tract Court in custody. At about 11:30 a.m., Ram Dhan alias Leela accused was following him after production in Court when Leela pointed out Kulbir Singh to appellant Mangal Singh identifying the former as the one wearing a checked shirt and white Pajama and exhorted Mangal Singh to shoot him upon which Mangal Singh gave fire arm injury on the left side of chest of Kulbir Singh from a pistol. After slaying Kulbir Singh, Mangal Singh fled away from the spot. Kulbir Singh was removed to General Hospital, Sonepat where he was given first-aid and was referred to PGIMS Rohtak. Kulbir Singh expired in PGIMS Rohtak on the same day at 3:00 p.m. The dead body was sent for post mortem.
On receiving this information a ruqqa was sent to Police Station whereupon a formal FIR was registered. The investigation was started. Mangal Singh-accused was arrested and was found in possession of an unlicenced pistol of .315 caliber together with a live cartridge. The weapon Criminal Appeal No.251-DB of 2007 3 of offense was taken in possession by the police vide recovery memo. Rough site plan was prepared of the place of occurrence.
Accused Leela @ Ram Dhan had escaped from police custody while he was produced in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. He was declared Proclaimed Offender. After completion of formalities, the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was presented before the Trial Court by the SHO, Police Station City, Sonepat. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant (for short "appellant") for commission of crime punishable under Sections 302/120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act vide order dated 10.12.2004. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of his case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses.
The material witness in this case is PW-4/Rajbir Singh Constable. He deposed that accused Ram Dhan @ Leela after his arrest was joined in the investigation with Court permission. Leela suffered a disclosure statement that he had helped Mangal Singh in procuring a pistol from Bhoop Singh of Rajasthan while he was residing in Delhi. He stated that he could demarcate the place from where the pistol was arranged and he had informed Bhoop Singh that he had prepared Mangal Singh to liquidate Kulbir Singh who would be appearing in the Court at Sonepat on 5.7.2004. He also informed him that Mangal Singh will come to see him in Rohtak Jail and a pistol and cartridge should be handed over to him. The disclosure statement of accused Ram Dhan @ Leela is Ex.PC/1.
PW-6/Nain Pal deposed that on 7.7.2004, he was posted in Police Lines, Sonepat. He was deputed with other police officials to bring Kulbir Singh (deceased)-accused from Bhiwani whereas accused Leela @ Criminal Appeal No.251-DB of 2007 4 Ram Dhan was brought from Rohtak to be produced in the Court at Sonepat. He deposed that after Court proceedings in the case were over and while they had brought Ram Dhan @ Leela out, the latter met with a young person who was armed with a country made pistol who chased Kulbir Singh for about 5 or 6 paces before firing a shot at him. Appellant-Mangal Singh was apprehended on the spot and his pistol was taken into possession.
PW-8/Dr. Naresh Dahiya-Medical Officer Government Hospital, Rohtak, conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Kulbir Singh on 8.7.2004. He proved the Post Mortem Report Ex.PF. He also identified the clothes worn by the deceased and the same were duly exhibited. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage and injury to vital organs as a result of bullet wound. The spent bullet was recovered from the body of the deceased and was sealed as Ex.P5 and was sent for forensic examination.
PW-12/Dr. Varsha-Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Sonepat, examined Kulbir Singh on 7.7.2004 and found the following injuries on his body:
"1. The punctured lacerated wound of size 2.5 x cm on the left side of the chest 6 cm below the nipple and surroundings. There were multiple punctured wounds about 10 cm in diameter. The blackening was present and the corresponding cut was present on the shirt and T-shirt. I advised surgeon opinion. X-ray chest and abdomen and ultra-sound abdomen.
2. There was multiple punctured wound present over the left side of the left arm and elbow."
PW-15/Ram Phal appeared in the witness box and supported the prosecution version. He was witness to the shooting incident. The sketch of the pistol was prepared in his presence and possession thereof taken vide recovery memo Ex.PO/1. He identified the fire arm when Criminal Appeal No.251-DB of 2007 5 produced in Court as the one used in the crime.
PW-17/Ram Mehar Singh deposed that he recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar at General Hospital, Sonepat when the injured Kulbir Singh was brought for first-aid. The FSL report Ex.PD/1 and PD/2 were tendered into evidence. The fire arm used was an unlicensed .315 caliber pistol for which separate sanction was obtained from the District Magistrate, Sonepat for prosecution under the Arms Act.
Ashok Kumar/PW-16 went on to explain in his deposition before the Court as witness for the prosecution that Kulbir Singh had murdered the wife of accused Leela and now Leela in conspiracy with Mangal Singh had taken revenge and got Kulbir Singh murdered. This spelt out the motive of the commission of crime.
On closing of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating material collected against the appellant was put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the allegations as false and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He raised the defence that Kulbir Singh had been murdered by the police in an encounter as he was a hardcore criminal and the administration was facing trouble from Kulbir Singh.
In his defence, the appellant produced Arvind Kumar as DW- 1, who deposed that Mangal Singh and Leela were unknown to each other. Leela was 40 years old whereas Mangal Singh was 20 years. Arvind Kumar was the Sarpanch of the village to which Mangal Singh belonged. His cross examination has led to nothing except that he was a summoned witness and his house fell about 200 yards away from the house of Mangal Singh.
Sube Singh-DW-2 deposed that Mangal Singh belongs to a reputed family. Leela @ Ram Dhan belongs to another village. They were Criminal Appeal No.251-DB of 2007 6 neither related to each other nor lived together.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
The present is clearly a case of contract killing. Both the accused and the deceased had criminal record. The motive to commit murder is explained in the evidence of Ashok Kumar PW-16 inasmuch as that Kulbir Singh was alleged to have murdered the wife of Ram Dhan @ Leela and since Leela was in custody and was unable to take revenge, he prepared accused Mangal Singh to kill Kulbir Singh for him. Even if we keep the motive apart, there is direct evidence in this case replete. In his deposition before the Court Ashok Kumar (PW-16), the eye witness deposed that accused Ram Dhan @ Leela exhorted Mangal Singh to kill Kulbir Singh in full public view in the court complex on the fateful day by pointing him out as the one wearing a shirt with checks and white Pajama. Merely because PW-16/Ashok Kumar was related to the deceased being his cousin and both their fathers being brothers is not sufficient to discard his testimony as one coming from an interested witness. There is sufficient corroborative evidence connecting the appellant with the slaying of Kulbir Singh as the murder was committed in broad light and in Court complex in the presence of the accompanying police witnessing the murderous attack while the appellant was being produced in Court in police custody in a criminal case. The police witnesses have also deposed in support of the prosecution case and we see no cogent reason to discard their testimonies. The fire arm was recovered from the appellant who was in custody in another criminal case and therefore, had committed the second crime in the presence of the police party accompanying him. All witnesses have Criminal Appeal No.251-DB of 2007 7 categorically stated that Mangal Singh fired the lethal shot which hit Kulbir Singh on the left of his chest while he was walking back from the Fast Track Court. There is no reason to believe that the police falsely implicated Mangal Singh. No further evidence was required to establish homicide. If Kulbir Singh was a hardcore criminal, as suggested, with 5/6 cases of dacoity against him that would not justify the taking of his life. We shudder to think that the crime was committed at a public place in broad daylight in the court complex visible to all and sundry thronging as usual the temple of justice. There is no hope for the appellant for any compassion in this dastardly act committed without fear, on an instigation, for all to see in broad day light which would justify anything except life imprisonment.
For the foregoing reasons, we have no doubt or hesitation in upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. The appeal is accordingly ordered to be dismissed.
( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA )
JUDGE JUDGE
09.10.2012
rajeev