Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik
Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008
Date of decision : 4.10.2012
Inder Singh .......Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana ....Respondent
Crl.Appeal No.375-DB of 2008
Japan Singh ....Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
Crl.Appeal No.511-DB of 2008
Krishan ....Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
Crl.Appeal No.158-DB of 2011
Puran @ Pappi ....Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
Crl.Appeal No.334-DB of 2008
Ajit ....Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
Crl. Revision No.1773 of 2008
Zile Singh ....Petitioner
Vs.
Puran @ Pappi and others .....Respondents
....
Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 2 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate and Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate and Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Neeru Bansal, Advocate for Mr.Sanjay Vashishth, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr.Sandeep Vermani, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
...
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK,J We propose to decide five Criminal Appeals filed by the convicts- appellants and one Criminal Revision filed by the complainant, vide this common judgement. All these Criminal Appeals and the Criminal Revision, arise out of the same impugned judgement dated 26.3.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhiwani.
Facts first. The criminal law was set into motion, by registering FIR No.190 dated 14.6.2005, Ex.`PR' recorded by S.I. Om Parkash PW-18, on the statement-Ex.`PW' dated 14.6.2005 made by Nathu Singh S/o Ram Singh, resident of Village Manheru Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. He stated that he was resident of Village Manheru, however, was residing at that time at Gali No.16,Kaunt Road, Shanti Nagar,Bhiwani and was agriculturist by profession. He had three sons. The eldest son was Karam Singh @ Pappu, younger to him was Zile Singh and youngest was Raju. About 4-5 years ago, he alongwith his children was living at Bhiwani after construction of a house. Today, i.e. 14.6.2005, at about 10 AM, he, his sons Karam Singh @ Pappu and Zile Singh, went to the Cooperative Society to deposit an instalment of ` 50,000/-. They reached Manheru at about 11 AM. His Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 3 son Karam Singh @ Pappu remained in the bank, with a view to check the account to deposit the instalment. He and his son Zile Singh went to the village for their personal work. When he and his son Zile Singh, after doing work, went to see their old house at about 12.30 PM, they saw that his son Karam Singh @ Pappu was in the house of Bir Singh, brother of Nathu Singh. Japan S/o Pehlad armed with a knife, Puran @ Pappi, Roop @ Kalu sons of Japan armed with knives, Krishan son of Risal armed with lathi, Azad son of Krishan, armed with knife, Kailasho wife of Arjun and Krishna wife of Krishan having bricks in their hands, caste Rajput, residents of Manheru, besides three other persons, whose names were not known to the complainant, but could identify them, in case they are brought before him, were causing injuries to Karam Singh with their respective weapons. On seeing them, all the persons who were causing injuries, ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. His son Karam Singh died at the spot due to the injuries on his person. The cause of enmity was that about 6/7 years ago, they had a quarrel with Arjun etc., in which Arjun and Rattan Singh had died and a case was registered against them. A compromise had been effected, however, above said persons had a grudge. Due to this enmity, today, above said persons,with a common intention have caused the murder of his son. Leaving his son Zile Singh at the spot,he was going to the police station for reporting the matter that police party met him, at the bus stop Kaunt and he got his statement recorded, which has been read over to him and found correct.
The above statement was recorded by S.I., Om Parkash, CIA, Bhiwani, who was present at bus stand Kaunt alongwith ASI, Jai Chand, HC Om Parkash 922, EHC Bal Kishan 754 in Government vehicle No.HR-15-C 4778 and its driver was Constable Ranbir Singh,637 on patrolling duty. Finding a cognizable case having been made out under Sections 147,148,149,452/302 IPC, Ruqa was sent through EHC Bal Kishan 754, to the police station for registration of the case. Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 4 It was stated that after registration of the FIR, its number be intimated and special report be sent to the higher officer as well as Illaqa Magistrate.
After registration of FIR, special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate, through PW-12 Constable Suresh Kumar No.962. S.I. Om Parkash alongwith officials and the complainant proceeded to the place of occurrence. Initiating the investigation, inquest report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' for short) was prepared by S.I. Om Parkash. Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted from the General Hospital, Bhiwani. Place of occurrence was inspected. Blood stained earth was taken into police possession. The rough site plan was prepared with correct marginal notes. Articles of the deceased were also taken into police possession.
During the course of investigation, offence under Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short), was added on 25.6.2006. Inspector/SHO Mohinder Singh,arrested accused Vinod and Birju, sons of Ram Kumar, residents of Village Lohani for the offence under Section 216 IPC. S.I. Om Parkash also arrested accused Balbir Singh son of Surat Singh and Vikram son of Balbir, residents of Devsar for the offence under Section 216 IPC on 26.6.2005. Krishan resident of Manheru was arrested by S.I. Om Parkash on 30.6.2005. He made disclosure statement, which was reduced into writing. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, he was taken on police remand and on 2.7.2005, accused Krishan got recovered lathi from disclosed place. The lathi was taken into possession, vide separate parcel and recovery memo, which was sealed with seal `OPS'. It was taken into police possession.
Accused Krishna wife of Krishan and Azad son of Krishan, Rajput, both residents of Village Manheru, were found innocent during the investigation. On 10.7.2005, Nathu Singh disclosed about the involvement of Ajit son of Dalip Singh Dhanak resident of Dadri Gate, Bhiwani. On 20.7.2005, S.I. Om Parkash Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 5 arrested Ajit son of Dalip Singh, after getting production warrants from the court. Accused Ajit suffered disclosure statement on 22.7.2005 and pursuant thereto, he got the knife recovered, which was taken into police possession. Offence under Sections 25,54,59 of the Arms Act was added. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On 24.7.2005, Japan son of Pehlad Singh, Rajput, resident of Manheru was arrested. Puran @ Pappi son of Japan Singh and Kailasho wife of Arjun Singh were arrested on 26.8.2005. Puran @ Pappi son of Japan made a disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered a knife (Churi), which was taken into police possession. Accused Roop @ Kalu and Inder were also arrested.
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was presented to the learned court of competent jurisdiction. Copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused, as per law. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for criminal trial, vide order dated 27.10.2005 against Puran @ Pappi, Krishan son of Risal, Ajit son of Dalip Singh, Japan son of Pehlad, Kailasho wife of Japan, Vinod son of Ram Kumar, Birju son of Ram Kumar, Vikram son of Balbir Singh and Balbir son of Surat Singh. Supplementary challans were also filed against remaining accused Inder and Roop @ Kalu, who were also committed to the court of Sessions, vide separate orders dated 3.2.2006 and 27.2.2006.
Having found a prima facie case made out against the accused, charge was framed against Puran @ Pappi, Krishan, Ajit, Japan, Kailasho, Vinod, Birju, Vikram, Balbir, Roop Singh and Inder Singh for commission of offences, punishable under Sections 147,148,452,302 and 216 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was moved by the prosecution on 15.4.2006. This application was allowed vide Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 6 order dated 4.7.2006 and Smt.Krishna w/o Krishan, Azad son of Krishan both residents of Village Manheru and Pappu son of Balbir, resident of Village Devsar, were summoned as additional accused, to face the trial alongwith the other accused. After hearing both the counsel for the parties, a consolidated charge was framed against all the accused.
The prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 21 PWs, besides tendering the relevant documents in evidence. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence,statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence brought on the record was put to the accused. The accused alleged false implication and claimed complete innocence. Opting for leading defence evidence, the accused examined 4 DWs.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the learned trial court, while giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted Vinod son of Ram Kumar, Birju son of Ram Kumar, Vikram son of Balbir and Balbir son of Surat Singh, of the charge under Section 216 IPC. Similarly, the learned trial court having doubted the case of the prosecution about the presence of accused Kanwar Pal Singh @ Pappu son of Balbir, Krishna w/o of Krishan, Azad son of Krishan and Kailasho w/o Arjun Singh at the time and place of occurrence, acquitted them of the charges framed against them, giving them the benefit of doubt.
However, the learned trial court found that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the remaining accused namely; Puran @ Pappi son of Japan, Krishan son of Risal, Inder son of Maman Singh, Ajit son of Dalip Singh, Roop Singh @ Kalu son of Japan Singh and Japan son of Pehlad. Accordingly, above said six accused were held guilty and were convicted for the offences under Sections 148,149,452 and 302 IPC. Accused Ajit, Roop Singh @ Kalu, Inder and Puran @ Pappi were also convicted for offences under Sections 25,54,59 of the Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 7 Arms Act, vide impugned judgement of conviction dated 26.3.2008.
Consequently, vide impugned order of sentence dated 27.3.2008, the learned trial court awarded the sentence to the convicts, as under :-
"U/s 302 r/w Section All the accused are sentenced to
149 IPC undergo life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of ` 10,000/- each and in
default of payment of fine, to further
undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year each.
U/s 148 IPC All the accused are sentenced to under
go rigorous imprisonment for a period
of two years each.
U/s 452 r//w Section All the accused are sentenced to under
149 IPC go rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three years and to pay a fine of
` 2,000/- each or in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of
two months each.
U/s 25 of Arms Act All the accused are sentenced to under
go rigorous imprisonment for a period
of two years each and to pay a fine of
` 2,000/- each or in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of
two months each.
All the sentences awarded to convicts
Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 8
shall run concurrently."
Feeling aggrieved against the above said judgement of conviction and order of sentence, the above noted five appeals have been filed before this court. However, it is pertinent to note here that convict Roop Singh @ Kalu son of Japan did not file any appeal, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants. Since during the pendency of the trial, complainant Nathu Singh had died, Criminal Revision has been filed by his son Zile Singh.
Sh.Sunil Panwar, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant Krishan in Criminal Appeal No.511-DB of 2008, vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against Krishan-appellant. Learned counsel submits that although the weapon of offence in the hands of Krishan-appellant was stated to be a lathi, but as per the postmortem report Ex.`PN', no injury with lathi was found on the person of the deceased, by PW-9 Dr.Naresh Kumar Garg. Learned counsel for the appellants collectively submitted that it was a blind murder and the entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. It was an exaggerated and concocted story put forth by the complainant to implicate maximum number of accused.
Learned counsel for the appellants placed heavy reliance on the statements of PW-5 Zile Singh, PW-9 Dr.Naresh Kumar Garg, PW-18 S.I., Om Parkash-investigating officer and DW-3 Naresh, the then Sarpanch of village Manheru, to contend that the complainant Nathu Singh as well as his son Zile Singh were not present, at the time and place of occurrence. It was a made up story that the complainant went to the bank alongwith his sons namely; Zile Singh and Karam Singh @ Pappu, to deposit the amount of ` 50,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the factum of deposit of the amount in the bank has not been verified or proved on the record.
Placing reliance on the medical evidence, learned counsel for the Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 9 appellants submit that the doctor has given general description of all the injuries together. It was not possible to attribute any particular injury to any of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there were very many serious discrepancies in the statements of other PWs, including that of PW-18, S.I., Om Parkash, who was the investigating officer.
It was next contended that the prosecution case was dependent on the testimony of PW-5 Zile Singh, who was an interested witness, being the brother of the deceased Karam Singh @ Pappu. PW-5 tried to make many improvements in his statement. Regarding motive, learned counsel for the appellants submit that since the compromise had taken place between the parties qua the earlier incident, there was no scope left on the part of the appellants to have any grudge against the complainant and his family members. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the serious contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution and also failed to give due weight to the defence evidence, particularly in the form of the statement of DW-3 Naresh, who was the then Sarpanch of village Manheru.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Japan Singh also submitted that since no recovery of knife was effected from appellant-Japan Singh, he was illegally convicted. Finally, learned counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned judgement be set aside and the appeals may be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that all the appeals were bereft of any merit and without any substance. He also submitted that there was no serious discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution. Whatever minor discrepancies were there, those were very natural. He also submitted that Japan Singh has not been convicted under the Arms Act, because recovery of knife from him, was not duly established. Learned counsel for the State submits that the chain of events has been duly completed bringing home the guilt against all the Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 10 appellants. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence, while passing the judgement of conviction and order of sentence. He concluded by submitting that the appeals may be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the record of the case.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised and keeping in view the peculiar fact situation of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that Criminal Appeal No.511-DB of 2008 filed by Krishan son of Risal deserves to be accepted. Criminal Revision filed by the complainant as well as the remaining four appeals are liable to be dismissed. We say so for more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.
As far as the appeal filed by Krishan son of Risal is concerned, it is an admitted position on record that the weapon of offence attributed to him was a lathi. Again, it was only a lathi, which was recovered from him. A careful perusal of the postmortem report Ex.`PN', read with the statement of PW-9 Dr.Naresh Kumar Garg, would show that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased, were caused by sharp edged weapons. Regarding the injuries found on the body of the deceased, PW-9 Dr.Naresh Kumar Garg opined, as under :-
"Multiple incised wounds ten in number on thorax and upper abdomen, on dissections extra. Vasion of the blood was present. On further dissection, blood all around the abdomen cavity and thorax seen.
On examination rupture of spleen final lines and puncture of the heart seen, with multiple wound on intestines. Other parts of the body was healthy. The cause of death in their opinion was due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs. These injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 11 course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature."
Thus, it is clear that no injury was found on the body of the deceased, which might have been caused by lathi. Further, the other accused persons, who were also stated to be armed with weapon of offences, other than the sharp edged weapons, have been rightly acquitted by the learned trial court. However, appellant-Krishan, who was also admittedly not armed with sharp edged weapon, has been convicted. The learned trial court has misread the evidence to this extent, while convicting the appellant-Krishan. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that Krishan-appellant, seems to be the victim of an exaggerated story put forth by the complainant, because no injury has been found on the body of the deceased, which might have been caused by Krishan, who was allegedly armed with Lathi. Having said that, we have no hesitation to conclude that conviction of appellant-Krishan is not sustainable in law.
So far as the remaining appellants namely; Japan Singh son of Pehlad Singh, Inder Singh S/o Maman Singh, Ajit son of Dalip Singh and Puran Singh @ Pappi son of Japan Singh are concerned, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against these appellants. No serious discrepancy has been found in the prosecution evidence qua these appellants.
PW-5 Zile Singh, who was although brother of the deceased Karam Singh @ Pappu, yet has successfully stood the acid test of cross examination, while deposing before the court on all the material aspects of the matter. All these four appellants namely; Japan Singh son of Pehlad (appellant in Crl. Appeal No.375-DB of 2008), Puran @ Pappi son of Japan Singh (appellant in Crl.Appeal No.158-DB of 2011), Inder Singh son of Maman Singh (appellant in Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008) and Ajit Singh son of Dalip Singh (appellant in Crl.Appeal Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 12 No.334-DB of 2008)) have not only been specifically named by PW-5 Zile Singh, while deposing before the court, but even the specific attribution has also been proved against them. This material witness has corroborated the prosecution story on all material particulars. Further, the evidence given by PW-5 Zile Singh, being natural and trust worthy, has been rightly relied upon by the learned trial court.
After the death of Nathu Singh-author of the FIR, during the course of the trial, importance of the statement of PW-5 has further increased, because he was the only witness available, to give an eye-witness account. He has duly proved the strong motive. Specific respective role played by all the above named four appellants, while committing the offence, punishable under Section 302 IPC, in furtherance of their common intention, has also been proved.
PW-9 Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, has duly proved the injuries, which were the multiple incised wounds, ten in numbers, on thorax and upper abdomen of the deceased. The details in this regard, have already been reproduced in the foregoing part of the judgement and the same are not being repeated, for the sake of brevity. During his cross- examination, nothing was found, which might affect the case of the prosecution. Thus, the medical evidence was also rightly believed by the learned trial court, the same having been found to be worth reliance.
PW-15 was Raju son of Nathu Singh, another brother of the deceased. However, this witness was not an eye-witness nor he claimed as such. In fact, he was examined for a different and limited purpose, that his father late Sh.Nathu Singh, who was author of the FIR, came to be murdered by Roop, Anand, Pawan and Pappu, during the course of trial of the present case. Roop was convicted vide impugned judgement also, but he has not come up in appeal, as noticed here-in- above. Other witnesses except PW-18, were formal.
PW-18 Om Parkash, Police Inspector (Retd.), who was posted as S.I., Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 13 Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani, on the date of occurrence i.e. 14.6.2005, was also the Investigating Officer. This witness was also put to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing substantial could be extracted from him, which might have caused even a slightest dent in the prosecution story, qua all the above said four appellants. He has meticulously narrated the complete chain of events, while deposing before the court, right from recording of the FIR, till filing the report under Section173 Cr.P.C. before the court, followed by supplementary challans as well. He has duly proved the recoveries effected from the appellants. In this view of the matter, chain of events culminating in the commission of offence gets completed.
Learned counsel for the appellants placed heavy reliance on the statement of DW-3 Naresh, son of Inder Singh, the then Sarpanch of Village Manheru, to contend that he was a responsible citizen and his statement was illegally ignored by the learned trial court. However, after going through his statement and para 62 of the impugned judgement, this court is convinced that the learned trial court has not committed any error of law, while discussing the statement of DW-3 and appreciating the same in the right perspective.
The learned trial court has discussed each and every minute detail of the case, specifically referring to the role of each of the convicts-appellants and relevant evidence produced by the prosecution. So far as the alleged discrepancies in the case of the prosecution are concerned, we are of the view that much importance cannot be attached thereto. We say so because the discrepancies, if any, are minor but natural, which do not go to the root of the case. The view taken by this court in this regard, also finds support from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, 1983 (2) SCC 217, wherein it was held that if the basic version of the witness is probable, minor discrepancies in it will not render the testimony unreliable. Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 14
This view came to be reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master and others, 2010 (12) SCC 324. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgement, which can be gainfully followed in the present case read, as under :-
" Before appreciating evidence of the witnesses examined in the case, it would be instructive to refer to the criteria for appreciation of oral evidence. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Courts to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters are not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and unless the reasons are weighty and formidable, it would not be proper for Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 15 the appellate court to reject the evidence on the ground of variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/trivial omissions would not justify a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a short-coming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. In the deposition of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence and threat to the life. It is not unoften that improvements in earlier version are made at the trial in order to give a boost to the prosecution case albeit foolishly. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to separate falsehood from the truth. In sifting the evidence, the Court has to attempt to separate the chaff from the grains in every case and this attempt cannot be abandoned on the ground that the case is baffling unless the evidence is really so confusing or conflicting that the process Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 16 cannot reasonably be carried out."
In a similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naresh and others, 2011 (2) RCR (Crl.) 364, held as under :-
" In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are found to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 17 testimony of the witness liable to be discredited (Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police V. Saravanan and Another, AIR 2009 SC 331, Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 334 and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011(1)RCR (Criminal) 57: 2010(6) R.A.J. 419, JT 2010(12) SC 287. The presence of PW-5 Zile Singh at the time and place of occurrence was very natural. We do not find any force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that since PW-5 was related witness, his testimony was liable to be rejected on this score alone. We have carefully examined the statement made by PW-5 Zile Singh. No doubt, he was brother of the deceased, but as noticed here-in-above, he has deposed about the complete chain of events in a very natural manner. His trust-worthiness could not be shaken, despite his lengthy cross-examination.
It is the settled proposition of law that simply because a witness is a related witness, his testimony cannot be rejected outrightly for that reason alone. On this issue, we draw support from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of A.P. Vs. S. Rayappa and others, 2006 (4) SCC (Crl.) 512. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which aptly apply in the present case, read as under :-
" 6. The other reason assigned by the High Court in recording acquittal of the accused is that PW 1 and PW 2 were interested witnesses being relations of deceased and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. By now it is a well established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 18 the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeking the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons.
7. On the contrary it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation,the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witnesses should be examined cautiously. The High Court has brushed aside the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 on the sole ground that they are interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased."
Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that there was no motive for the appellants to commit the murder of Karam Singh Crl.Appeal No.444-DB of 2008 19 @ Pappu, because in the earlier criminal matter, the parties have arrived at a compromise. This argument seems to be attractive at first blush, but when considered in view of peculiar fact situation of the present case, it has been found to be without any force. We say so because it is an admitted fact on the record that families of the accused and also that of complainants, were having a criminal litigation in an earlier double murder case, which was allegedly compromised. In this view of the matter, the motive behind the crime is indirectly admitted and duly proved on the record of the case. Thus, we are of this considered view that the motive, in the present case, has worked as a double edged weapon.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, it is unhesitatingly held that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against appellant-Krishan. Thus, giving him the benefit of doubt, he is ordered to be acquitted of the charge framed against him. His bail bond is ordered to be discharged. His appeal, bearing Crl.Appeal No.511-DB of 2008, stands allowed.
The Criminal Revision No.1773 of 2008 (Zile Singh Vs. Puran @ Pappi and others) as well as the Criminal Appeals bearing numbers 444-DB of 2008 (Inder Singh Vs. State of Haryana), 375-DB of 2008 (Japan Singh Vs. State of Haryana), 158-DB of 2011 (Puran @ Pappi Vs. State of Haryana)and 334-DB of 2008 (Ajit Vs. State of Haryana), are bereft of any merit and without any substance, therefore, these are ordered to be dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE JUDGE
4.10.2012.
GS