Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 November, 2010
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No. M-20092 of 2010 (O&M) (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-20092 of 2010 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 2.11.2010
Charan Singh ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..........Respondent
BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Crl. Misc. Nos. 48827-28 of 2010 Applications are allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No. M-20092 of 2010 The present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail has been filed on behalf of Charan Singh in case FIR No. 41 dated 1.3.2010 registered under Sections 302/212/120-B/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Kasola, District Rewari.
In this case, notice of motion was issued on 16.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence in question and only on the basis of disclosure statement made by main accused-
Crl. Misc. No. M-20092 of 2010 (O&M) (2) Hoshiar Singh, the petitioner has been involved in the case. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that the motorcycle used in the alleged offence as mentioned in the disclosure statement is not of the petitioner and one Ajit Singh is the owner of the said motorcycle, which has been taken on supardari by him being its registered owner and the question of recovery does not arise at all. A stolen Honda Accord car was allegedly used in the commission of offence by the main accused, therefore, recovery of motorcycle from the petitioner cannot fasten liability upon him and even the statement of Ajit Singh, owner of the motorcycle has not been recorded. . Learned counsel also submits that there was previous dispute between the parties, therefore, there was motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. As per case of the prosecution, the wife of the petitioner was arrested at the instance of deceased as the petitioner threatened the deceased to face the dire consequences for arresting his wife but that motive goes against the complainant. The petitioner is in custody since 23.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Keshav Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 570, Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 671, Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 468 and of Calcutta High Court in Ramani Mohan De Vs. Emperor AIR 1933 Calcutta 146 to support his contention that disclosure statement made by co-accused is not legally admissible under Evidence Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence and he actively participated in the murder of Ram Kumar and motive was also there, as earlier the wife of the petitioner was arrested in other case at the instance of deceased and he threatened the deceased to face dire consequences. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submits Crl. Misc. No. M-20092 of 2010 (O&M) (3) that the petitioner was the main instrument in the murder of deceased-Ram Kumar as he gave information as well as money to co-accused Hoshiar Singh for the said murder. During investigation, the petitioner got demarcated the place of occurrence and got recovered the motorcycle allegedly used in the occurrence. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage, as serious allegations are there against him and statement of prosecution witnesses are still to be recorded and moreover he is in custody only since 23.3.2010.
Learned counsel for the complainant also opposes the bail on the ground that although the disclosure statement is not admissible under the Evidence Act but is admissible if the place of occurrence is demarcated as well as recovery is made on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused. The recovery of the motorcycle used in the alleged offence, was made from the petitioner only. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that there is no strict standard with regard to admissibility of the evidence made on the basis of disclosure statement. Moreover it is a case of conspiracy and conspiracy though hearsay evidence is admissible against co-accused. As per Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the basic idea is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events and that doctrine is founded on principle that if any fact is discovered in search made by the strength of any information obtained from the co-accused, such discovery is correct and can be relied upon. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sidhartha Vashisht alia Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1385, Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others Vs. State of Kerala 2001 SCC (Cri) 1341, State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and others 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 781, Limbaji Vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 266, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav 2005 (1) Crl. Misc. No. M-20092 of 2010 (O&M) (4) RCR (Criminal) 703 and of this Court in Anupam alia Anup Vs. State of Haryana 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 57.
I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on the record.
In this case, FIR was registered on the statement of Lakhi Ram son of deceased-Ram Kumar. As per allegations in the complaint/FIR, on 28.2.2010 at 4.30 pm deceased-Ram Kumar went in village Kasola to attend some Tikka ceremony in his Alto Car. At about 8.00 pm, when complainant was present at his house, one Tara Chand came and informed him that his father had been shot dead by some unknown persons on Kasola Road. On this information, complainant along with Mahi Pal reached at the spot and and saw that Alto Car of his father was parked on the left side of Kasola-Bakhapur road and the dead body was lying on the right side of the road and there was fire injury on the head of the deceased. On the basis of statement made by Lakhi Ram, the aforesaid FIR was recorded against some unknown persons for committing murder of his father. During investigation, co-accused Hoshiar Singh was arrested in this case, who made disclosure statement regarding involvement of the present petitioner, who was also arrested on 23.3.2010. The motorcycle used in the alleged offence was also recovered from his possession. The Petitioner also got demarcated the place of occurrence. During investigation, it has also come in evidence that petitioner conspired with other co-accused Kanwar Singh and Hoshiar Singh and gave money to them for murder of the deceased.
Admittedly, the case is at the initial stage as the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. During investigation, it has also come in evidence that petitioner conspired with other co-accused Kanwar Singh and Hoshiar Singh and gave money to them for murder of the deceased.
Crl. Misc. No. M-20092 of 2010 (O&M) (5) The motorcycle used in the alleged offence is also recovered from the petitioner and the place of occurrence was also demarcated by him only. It is a matter of evidence whether the said motorcycle was used by the petitioner and that can be appreciated if some evidence is there. It would be too early to appreciate at this stage as no evidence has come on record and to form an opinion with regard to involvement of the petitioner would not be admissible at this stage. Moreover, the petitioner is involved in the serious offence and the factum of conspiracy can be established on the basis of statement of witnesses The petitioner is in custody since 23.3.2010 only. There may be an apprehension of putting pressure on the witnesses as an old enmity is there between the complainant and the petitioner.
In view of the facts mentioned above, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
November 02, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No